Exhibit 20 - Declaration of Lederer in Support of Motion for Class Certification — Marshall v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC (Dkt. 139-21, E.D. Pa. No. 5:21-cv-04337)

Summary

Exhibit 20, a declaration of Lawrence J. Lederer filed 09/06/24 as Document 139-21 in Marshall, et al. v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC, Civil Action No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Lederer, a partner of Bailey & Glasser LLP and one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, submits it under penalty of perjury in support of plaintiffs' motion for class certification. It was executed on the 6th day of September, 2024.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors. Page 6 of 6 is not shown because the text could not be recognized reliably.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 139-21 Filed 09/06/24 Page1of6

EX. 20 -- DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE J.
LEDERER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 139-21 Filed 09/06/24 Page2of6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ALICIA MARSHALL, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Civil Action No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Plaintiffs,
Vv.
PRESTAMOS CDFI, LLC,

Defendant.

DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE J. LEDERER IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

I, Lawrence J. Lederer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, hereby declare under penalty of
perjury under the laws of the United States of America as follows:

1. I am over 18 years old and am competent to make this declaration which I do based
on my personal knowledge. I am a partner of Bailey & Glasser LLP, one of the attorneys for the

Plaintiffs' in this litigation.

2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ accompanying motion for class
certification.
3. Each of the Plaintiffs has actively participated in this litigation from the time they

retained Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs have also filed a joint declaration describing several of the
activities they have undertaken in this litigation to date and attesting to their desire and fitness to

serve as Class representatives.

4. Plaintiffs’ counsel includes Bailey & Glasser, LLP and Nolan Heller Kauffman LLP.

' Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this declaration have the meaning set forth in the

Table of Abbreviations in the brief filed in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 139-21 Filed 09/06/24 Page3of6

Plaintiffs’ counsel have been retained by Plaintiffs on a contingent basis, have paid and advanced the
costs of this litigation, and are committed to prosecuting and funding this action through trial and
appeal to its ultimate resolution. Plaintiffs’ counsel have, among other things, investigated the facts;
researched applicable law and PPP regulations; researched, prepared and filed four separate detailed
complaints and amended complaints; researched, prepared and filed briefs and other documents in
opposition to multiple motions to dismiss filed by defendant Prestamos and its corporate parent
CPLC; helped prepare and negotiated the parties’ protective order which was approved by the Court
(ECF No. 20); prepared and served written discovery requests including separate rounds of requests
for production of documents, interrogatories and requests for admission; coordinated with Plaintiffs
and responded to Prestamos’ requests for production of documents and interrogatories and collected
and produced responsive documents, including tax returns and bank account statements for the years
2019-2021 or certifications and verified interrogatory responses as directed by the Court (ECF No.
125 at J 1); reviewed documents produced by Prestamos, CPLC and others and utilized and worked
with an outside document database vendor and platform to organize and search the documents
produced; prepared and defended Plaintiffs in their depositions by Prestamos; prepared for and
deposed Prestamos’ proposed experts Jorge Baez and Kenneth Swain as part of Phase I discovery
(ECF No. 102 at §§ 2, 4; ECF No. 123 § 1 (c)); issued three subpoenas to nonparties and negotiated
with Prestamos and monitored the subpoenas it issued to Prestamos’ own LSP Blueacorn, Plaintiffs’
banks and others and obtained and reviewed additional documents produced by those nonparties;
negotiated with and resolved many discovery disputes without Court intervention such as concerning
document requests, interrogatories and the withdrawal of certain “Highly Confidential” designations
Prestamos originally made to certain documents produced as part of Phase I discovery; litigated other
discovery disputes before the Court that the parties were unable to resolve on their own such as
Prestamos’ objection on grounds of relevance to producing any SBA Form 1502 reports or PPPLF

PAR forms (ECF Nos. 76-78); prepared for and attended hearings and status conferences set by the
2
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 139-21 Filed 09/06/24 Page4of6

Court; coordinated closely with the Plaintiffs and others; fielded many inquiries from putative class
members and others seeking to be added as plaintiffs; retained and worked with three highly
qualified proposed experts, including two former senior Schedule C-appointed SBA officials who
helped oversee PPP lending, William Briggs and William M. Manger, Jr., and an expert in capital
markets, Steven P. Feinstein, Ph.D., CFA; worked closely with those three experts each of whom
timely submitted written opening and rebuttal reports and defended them at their depositions;
reviewed the written opening and rebuttal reports of defendant’s proposed expert Kenneth Swain and
the rebuttal report only (as he did not submit an opening report) of defendant’s additional proposed
expert Jorge Baez and deposed both of them; and researched and prepared Plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification and accompanying papers, including Plaintiffs’ Proposed Trial Plan and other
documents and engaged in many other activities in this case.

5. We worked closely with our co-counsel, Nolan Heller & Kauffman LLP on many of
these tasks. Both my firm and Nolan Heller & Kauffman have extensive experience in commercial
and other litigation including involving banks and other financial institutions, and my firm and I are
also experienced in class action litigation. A copy of our firm resumes is attached as Exhibits 22-23
to the Appendix in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Additional information about

our firms is set forth in our firm websites. See https://www.baileyglasser.com/; https://nhkllp.com/.

Given our work to date, experience, commitment to this case, and our opinion that but for this
litigation Plaintiffs and the class members will likely be deprived of any opportunity for relief for the
claims at issue, I believe Plaintiffs’ counsel should be appointed counsel for the Classes in
accordance with Rule 23(g).

6. The parties stipulated to the dismissal of 11 of the original 21 co-plaintiffs,
including seven with the approval of the Court (ECF Nos. 136-137), and four others pending.

First, the dismissal of these 11 original plaintiffs has already reduced the size of the proposed
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 139-21 Filed 09/06/24 Page5of6

Classes from 17 Class Member States to eight Class Member States; from 11,655 class members
to 7,417 class members; from $194,105,851.00 in total unfunded PPP loan proceeds to
$122,489,761.00; and from $28,239,301.50 in total fees Prestamos collected on those unfunded
loans to $17,935,811.00. See Plas’ App’x Ex 27. Second, all of these 11 original plaintiffs were
dismissed as part of Phase I discovery, several of whom because of their inability or
unwillingness to comply with the discovery burdens of this case. As summarized in an email
from just one of them sent just following our request that they produce to us all of their tax
returns and bank account statements or certifications regarding how they searched for them
covering the years 2019-2021:

“Hello, I am requesting that you guys pull me from this case all together
this has been just a painstakingly long process that I have already chalked
up as a loss and moved on from. If it were remotely close to when I was
forced to close my doors then maybe I would have the strength or
willpower to fight on, but I don't. I literally have not one document of any
sort of my business or this incident. Now unlike a lot of businesses that
got screwed over by them I'm sure feel a different way because they were
established or what not but I was literally a start up and failed attempt at a
business mainly because of covid but they sure didn't help in the process.
If it were my life passion to own a business and it was shot down this way
that would be a different story. But it was an idea I tried it and nothing
came from it. I have changed fields completely and started school since
then and IJ rather this just be behind me as I have forgotten about it
numerous times but it keeps getting brought back to my attention every
few months or so with a new email or document that I need to find or
bring up to the table and it's just exhausting. So please just withdraw me
from this case I am no longer wanting to battle against someone who is
going to just find ways to delay and delay when they know they were in
the wrong .....especially when my amount was so small compared to a lot
of people who actually need the fight more than I do.”

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on this 6th day of September, 2024.


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.paed.589575.139.21.pdf

Size

1,437,660 bytes

SHA-256

d0873ac01dc60aea6ee9a8762c67de6891a348d2cac22e4ac07db52385443301

Our copy

gov.uscourts.paed.589575.139.21.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)