Motion (2021-03-25) — Jennifer Yick, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A.

Source document: Motion (2021-03-25) — Jennifer Yick, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A.; document type: Joint Motion (Notice of Motion, Motion, and Memorandum of Points and Authorities).

Full text

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and
Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (SBN 36324)
jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
ANNE MARIE MURPHY (SBN 202540)
amurphy@cpmlegal.com
BRIAN DANITZ (SBN 247403)
bdanitz@cpmlegal.com
KARIN B. SWOPE (PRO HAC VICE pending)
kswope@cpmlegal.com
ANDREW F. KIRTLEY (SBN 328023)
akirtley@cpmlegal.com
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA  94010
Telephone:  (650) 697-6000
Fax:  (650) 697-0577

Attorneys for Plaintiff Jennifer Yick
and the Proposed Class
MICHAEL RUBIN (SBN 080618)
mrubin@altber.com
STACEY M. LEYTON (SBN 203827)
sleyton@altber.com
MATTHEW MURRAY (SBN 271461)
mmurray@altber.com
CONNIE K. CHAN (SBN 284230)
cchan@altber.com
ALTSHULER BERZON, LLP
177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA  94108
Telephone:  (415) 421-7151
Facsimile:  (415) 362-8064

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Roland Oosthuizen,
Rosemary Mathews and the Proposed Class

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER YICK, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and
DOES 1-20, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:21-cv-00376-VC

CLASS ACTION

NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION, AND
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF JOINT
MOTION TO:

(1) CONSOLIDATE RELATED ACTIONS

(2) APPOINT COTCHETT, PITRE &
McCARTHY, LLP AND ALTSHULER
BERZON LLP AS INTERIM CO-LEAD
COUNSEL, AND PROPOSED
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Judge:
Hon. Vince Chhabria
Courtroom:
4 – 17th Floor
Hearing Date:
March 25, 2021
Hearing Time:
2:00 p.m.
Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 1 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and
Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This document also relates to:

CARLOS RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself
and a class of others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,
v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No.:
3:21-CV-00494-VC

Judge:
Hon. Vince Chhabria

Action Filed: 1/20/2021
This document also relates to:

J. MICHAEL WILLRICH, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and
DOES 1-20, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.:
3:21-cv-00547-VC

Judge:
Hon. Vince Chhabria

Action Filed: 1/22/2021
This document also relates to:

LINDSAY MCCLURE, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and
DOES 1-20, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.:
3:21-cv-00572-VC

Judge:
Hon. Vince Chhabria

Action Filed: 1/25/2021

Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 2 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and
Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This document also relates to:

ROLAND OOSTHUIZEN and ROSEMARY
MATHEWS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and
DOES 1 through 30, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.:
4:21-cv-00615-VC

Judge:
Hon. Vince Chhabria

Action Filed: 1/26/2021
This document also relates to:

ROBERT L. WILSON, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and
DOES 1-20, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.:
3:21-cv-00699-VC

Judge:
Hon. Vince Chhabria

Action Filed: 1/28/2021
This document also relates to:

CHRISTOPHER MOSSON, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and
DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.:
3:21-cv-00743-VC

Judge:
Hon. Vince Chhabria

Action Filed: 1/29/2021
Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 3 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and
Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This document also relates to:

CLARA CAJAS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and
DOES 1-20, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.:
3:21-cv-00869-VC

Judge:
Hon. Vince Chhabria

Action Filed: 2/3/2021

Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 4 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on March 25, 2021 at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable
Vince Chhabria, in Courtroom 4 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, located at the Phillip Burton Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 17th Floor, San
Francisco, California 94102, plaintiffs Jennifer Yick, Roland Oosthuizen, and Rosemary Matthews
(“Plaintiffs”) will and hereby do move the Court for an order consolidating the related actions
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), and appointing the attorneys at Cotchett, Pitre
& McCarthy, LLP (“CPM”) and Altshuler Berzon LLP (“Altshuler Berzon”) (together,
“Proposed Lead Counsel”) as interim co-lead counsel in this litigation, and appointing an executive
committee. Plaintiffs also will and hereby do move to consolidate with this action all cases involving
similar questions of fact and law that have been or subsequently will be filed, as it will promote just
and efficient conduct. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42. However, litigations brought by pro se plaintiffs that do
not purport to represent a putative class should not be consolidated; instead, these actions should be
coordinated with this consolidated class action.
Plaintiffs bring this motion for appointment of class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(g). Proposed Lead Counsel meet all the requirements for appointing interim lead
counsel. Both CPM and Altshuler Berzon, as well as members of the proposed executive committee,
have broad and nationally recognized experience leading complex class actions, including consumer
protection class actions of this breadth and nature. Proposed Lead Counsel have the necessary
resources to prosecute the litigation in a timely manner and will work cooperatively with other
plaintiffs’ and defense counsel to efficiently and effectively manage the litigation, as they have
repeatedly done in the past. And, given the work this litigation may entail, the appointment of the
proposed executive committee will allow for expeditious resolution of this matter.
Plaintiffs’ motion is based on this notice, the accompanying memorandum of points and
authorities, the Joint Declaration of Brian Danitz and Michael Rubin (“Joint Declaration”), and the
Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 5 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
exhibits thereto, and any additional arguments and evidence that the Court may consider at the
hearing.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

1.
Whether the Court should consolidate the related actions representing a purported
class alleging similar questions of facts and law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), and
grant coordination of actions prosecuted by pro se litigants not purporting to represent a class.
2.
Whether the Court should appoint Proposed Lead Counsel as interim lead counsel
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
3.
Whether the Court should appoint the proposed members of the Executive
Committee.

Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 6 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
I.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
II.
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ........................................................................................... 2
III. MOTION TO APPOINT LEAD COUNSEL AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ......... 3
A. Proposed Lead Counsel and Committee Structure ..................................................... 3
1. Proposed Lead Counsel .............................................................................................. 4
2. Proposed Members of Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee ............................................ 5
B. The Court Should Adopt the Proposed Structure ....................................................... 6
1. Rule 23(g)(1)(A)(i): “The work counsel has done in identifying or investigating
potential claims in the action” .................................................................................... 7
2. Rule 23(g)(1)(A)(ii): “Counsel’s experience in handling class action, other
complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action” ........................... 8
3. Rule 23(g)(1)(A)(iii): “Counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law” ...................... 12
4. Rule 23(g)(1)(A)(iv): “The resources that counsel will commit to representing
the class”................................................................................................................... 12
5. Rule 23(g)(1)(B): “Any other matter pertinent to counsel’s ability to fairly and
adequately represent the interests of the class” ........................................................ 13
IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 14

Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 7 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
ii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)
Cases
Adkins v. Facebook, Inc.,
Case No. 18-05982-WHA (N.D. Cal.) ...................................................................................... 10
In re Ambry Genetics Data Breach Litig.,
No. 20-cv-00791 (C.D. Cal.) .................................................................................................... 11
In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig.,
No. 15-MD-02617-LHK (N.D. Cal.) ...................................................................................... 8, 9
In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig.,
18-md-02827-EJD, MDL No. 2827 (N.D. Cal.) ................................................................... 8, 10
In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litig.,
Case No. 2:12-md-02311-SFC (E.D. Mich.) .............................................................................. 8
In re Bextra and Celebrex Marketing Sales Practices and Prod. Liab. Litig.,
No. MDL-1699 (N.D. Cal.) ........................................................................................................ 8
In re Bluetooth Headset Prod. Liab. Litig.,
654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 13
In re Brinker Data Incident Litig.,
No. 18-cv-686 (M.D. Fla.) ........................................................................................................ 11
Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co.,
No. C 10-0502 RS, 2011 WL 13141425 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2011) ...................................... 2, 3
In re Citrix Data Breach Litig.,
Case No. 19-cv-61350-RKA (S.D. Fla.) ................................................................................... 10
In re Digitek Prod. Liab. Litig.,
No. 2:08-md-01968 (S.D. W. Va.)...................................................................................... 13, 14
In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig.,
No. M 02–1486 PJH, 2006 WL 1530166 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2006) ......................................... 12
Fanning et al. v. HSBC Card Services Inc.,
No. 12-cv-00885-JVS (C.D. Cal.) .............................................................................................. 9
In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litig.,
No. 12-2358-SLR, 2012 WL 5833604 (D. Del. Nov. 16, 2012) .............................................. 12
Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 8 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
iii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Huene v. United States,
743 F.2d 703 (9th Cir. 1984) ...................................................................................................... 2
In re Intel Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Prod. Liab. Litig.,
Case No. 3:18-md-02828-SI (D. Or.) ....................................................................................... 10
Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal.,
877 F.2d 777 (9th Cir. 1989) ...................................................................................................... 2
In re Lenovo Adware Litig.,
No. 15-md-02624, 2015 WL 10890657 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2015) .......................................... 14
Lindgren v. HSBC Card Services Inc.,
No. 14-cv-05615-JVS (C.D. Cal.) .............................................................................................. 9
Lowery v. Spotify USA Inc.,
No. CV 15-09929-BRO, 2016 WL 6818756 (C.D. Cal. May 23, 2016) .................................. 12
In re Medical Capital Sec. Litig.,
No. SA CV 09-1048-DOC-RNB (C.D. Cal.).............................................................................. 8
In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litig.,
1:20-cv-05914 (S.D.N.Y.) ........................................................................................................ 11
Nobles v. MBNA Corp.,
No. C06-3723-CRB (N.D. Cal.) ................................................................................................. 9
In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010,
No. 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS (E.D. La.).................................................................................... 14
Outten v. Wilmington Trust Corp.,
281 F.R.D. 193 (D. Del. 2012) ................................................................................................. 12
In re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litig.,
No. 4:07-md-01819-CW (N.D. Cal.) .......................................................................................... 8
In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litig.,
Case No. 16-MD-02752 (N.D. Cal.) ......................................................................................... 10
Statutes
Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq. ................................................................. 3
California Consumer Privacy Act, Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq. .................................................... 2
California Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. ..................................... 2, 9
Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 9 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
iv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Rules
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

23(g)(3) .............................................................................................................................. passim

42(a) ........................................................................................................................................ 1, 2
Other Authorities
Manual for Complex Litigation (4th ed. 2004):

§ 10.21......................................................................................................................................... 4

§ 10.22....................................................................................................................................... 14

§ 21.11......................................................................................................................................... 6

§ 10.224....................................................................................................................................... 7

§ 21.272..................................................................................................................................... 14

Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 10 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
INTRODUCTION
Presently before the Court are eight related putative class actions affecting millions of
Californians who have been forced to rely on unemployment insurance issued by the California
Employment Development Department (“EDD”) to survive during the coronavirus pandemic. As
the financial institution with the exclusive contract to administrate such benefits, Bank of America,
N.A. (“Bank of America”) is responsible for safeguarding these funds. Plaintiffs allege that Bank of
America has failed in this task, causing irreparable harm to the members of the Class.
 In recent months, the news has exploded with stories of EDD benefits recipients who have
attempted to use their Bank of America EDD prepaid debit card (an “EDD Cardholder”), only to
learn that the money in their Bank of America EDD account (“EDD Account”) is gone—stolen by
hackers and criminals exploiting Bank of America’s use of outdated technology. Bank of America
failed to protect these EDD accounts and then, contrary to the promises in its EDD cardholder
agreement, Bank of America failed to assist the hundreds of thousands of defrauded EDD
cardholders, depriving them of their lifeline. Consequently, Plaintiffs have been forced to pursue
litigation to ensure that they, and all those similarly situated, receive the protection they so
desperately need in the present circumstances.
On February 11, 2021, the Court issued an order relating the eight above-captioned putative
class actions, all of which involve the same defendant and similarly defined classes, raise virtually
identical legal and factual issues, and seek the same or substantially similar relief. To further achieve
judicial efficiency and economy of resources, Plaintiffs in these eight related actions now move for
consolidation and propose the robust leadership structure below. To enhance efficiency, each
member of a proposed Executive Committee is assigned a defined and nonoverlapping role from the
beginning. To ensure the right team, Proposed Lead Counsel undertook a collaborative process to
design a structure with input from all counsel. Proposed Lead Counsel created a cohesive and truly
diverse team with skills to match the needs of this case and to ensure that the case proceeds on an
expedited basis, which is required under the pressing circumstances. As noted in the Joint
Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 11 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Declaration, firms that helped organize counsel and protect the class over the past months support
this motion. Plaintiffs therefore respectfully submit that Proposed Lead Counsel, with members of
the Executive Committee, have demonstrated the best understanding of the relevant factual and legal
issues presented in these cases and have the resources and experience to see them through to a
successful and efficient resolution.
II.
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
Consolidation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) is proper where actions
“involve a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “The purpose of consolidation is
not only to enhance efficiency of the trial court by avoiding unnecessary duplication of evidence and
procedures, but also to avoid inconsistent adjudications.” Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co., No. C 10-
0502 RS, 2011 WL 13141425, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). A “district court has broad discretion to consolidate cases pending in the same district.”
Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989).
In exercising its broad discretion to consolidate actions under Rule 42(a), a court “weighs the saving
the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience, delay, or
expense that it would cause.” Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984).
Here, there can be no dispute that the eight related actions before the Court present a
multitude of common questions of law and fact. As explained in Plaintiff’s administrative motion to
relate cases, which Bank of America did not oppose, all of the related actions are brought against
Bank of America on behalf of substantially the same proposed class. All of the related actions seek
to remedy Bank of America’s alleged failures to take reasonable steps to protect the named plaintiffs
and putative class members from fraud and to take reasonable steps to ensure that the named
plaintiffs and class members are able to access the public benefits to which they are lawfully entitled.
All of the related actions assert claims for breach of contract, violation of the California Consumer
Privacy Act, Civ. Code § 1798.100 et seq., and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law,
Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. Many of the related actions also assert claims of negligence,
breach of implied contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 12 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq. based on substantially
identical factual allegations.
Moreover, consolidation will significantly conserve judicial resources, while generating no
(or at most de minimis) inconvenience, delay, or expense. Plaintiffs seek to consolidate the cases at
the outset of litigation. All of the cases were only recently filed, and Bank of America has not yet
responded to any of them. A consolidated complaint will establish a single, uniform class definition,
streamline the issues in this complex class action, and eliminate the confusion and delay that may
result from prosecuting related class action cases separately. Consolidation will also conserve
judicial and party resources and expedite resolution of this matter by avoiding duplicative class
certification proceedings, discovery disputes, dispositive motions, and trial proceedings. See, e.g.,
Chacanaca, 2011 WL 13141425, at *2 (granting consolidation of class actions under similar
circumstances).
For all these reasons, all putative federal class actions already before this Court, those that
will be transferred to this Court, and those that will be deemed related by this Court should be
consolidated.
While the related class actions should be consolidated, certain actions involving pro se
litigants that are not seeking to represent a proposed class should not be consolidated in this
litigation. Instead, these actions should be coordinated with this litigation in order to reduce
duplication of tasks and lessen confusion and delay. If so ordered, Proposed Lead Counsel are
committed to coordinating with the pro se plaintiffs efficiently, fairly, and compassionately.
III.
MOTION TO APPOINT LEAD COUNSEL AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
A.
Proposed Lead Counsel and Committee Structure
Proposed Lead Counsel and the Executive Committee was crafted through a transparent and
collaborative process open to any plaintiffs’ counsel who had a case on file in this District and who
wished to participate. These efforts are detailed in the Joint Declaration at ¶¶ 3-6. The goal was to
create a structure and arrangement that would be efficient, with pre-identified roles assigned to the
appropriate attorneys. Great care was also given to gender diversity (two thirds of the Executive
Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 13 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Committee is run by women) and geographic diversity (firms based in Southern California and the
Bay Area). Finally, special consideration was given to attorneys who demonstrated a willingness
during the process “to fulfill their obligations as advocates in a manner that will foster and sustain
good working relations among fellow counsel and the court.” Manual for Complex Litigation (4th
ed. 2004) § 10.21 (the “Manual”); see also id. (“The added demands and burdens of complex
litigation place a premium on attorney professionalism.”).
1.
Proposed Lead Counsel
Plaintiffs propose that the law firms of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP and Altshuler
Berzon LLP serve as interim lead counsel for the putative class. Brian Danitz of CPM and Michael
Rubin of Altshuler Berzon will serve as the primary contacts for Proposed Lead Counsel.
For over 50 years, CPM has dedicated its services to prosecuting or defending socially just
actions. Repeatedly recognized by the National Law Journal, CPM has earned a national reputation
for the breadth of its practices and the diversity of its clients. CPM has secured billions of dollars
for its clients and classes, and its attorneys have been honored with such prestigious accolades as
induction to the American College of Trial Lawyers, named as Top 100 attorneys by “Super
Lawyers” and the Daily Journal, and service on government commissions and the boards of
numerous non-profit organizations. A firm biography is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Joint
Declaration.
Since its founding in 1978, Altshuler Berzon has been a leader at the forefront of protecting
workers’ and consumers’ rights. Altshuler Berzon has obtained multimillion-dollar judgments and
settlements, as well as court-ordered and negotiated injunctive relief on behalf of millions of
consumers and workers. The firm also frequently handles complex and high-stakes class action
appeals and has secured numerous groundbreaking decisions from the Ninth Circuit, California
Supreme Court, and U.S. Supreme Court. Altshuler Berzon has earned a nationwide reputation for
litigation excellence and last year was named one of California’s “Top Boutique Law Firms” by the
Daily Journal. The firm’s attorneys are also routinely recognized by the Daily Journal and “Super
Lawyers” as among the best lawyers in California; Michael Rubin, for example, has won an
Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 14 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
unprecedented seven “California Lawyer of the Year” awards from the Daily Journal for both his
trial and appellate work. The firm’s biography is attached as Exhibit 2 to the Joint Declaration.
Proposed Lead Counsel law firms have decades of litigation experience and have served as
lead or co-lead counsel in scores of class and complex litigation actions, both in this District as well
as throughout the country. Proposed Lead Counsel have excellent credentials and the requisite
experience to serve as interim co-lead counsel for the proposed class. Their experiences as class
action and multidistrict litigation counsel, as well as their intimate knowledge of technological and
consumer protection issues, will ensure that the action will be prosecuted efficiently and effectively.
The Court should be confident that Proposed Lead Counsel law firms will effectively represent and
guide the plaintiff class toward a resolution that is in their best interests. And because both firms
have offices in this District, the proposed leadership structure does not need to include a Court
liaison.
2.
Proposed Members of Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee
A committee structure is required due to the scope of this action, which encompasses
hundreds of thousands of EDD Cardholders and Accounts. Extreme care and purposeful deliberation
were taken in the selection of the proposed members of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee. Indeed,
this grouping mirrors the diversity of the Bar and the plaintiff class, following guidance from the
Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies Standards and Best Practices for Large and Mass-Tort MDLs,
which encourage “appointment of an experienced slate of attorneys” who will “fairly represent all
plaintiffs, keeping in mind the benefits of diversity of experience, skills, and backgrounds.”
Combining their experience with the resources available from their respective law firms, members
of the Executive Committee will ensure effective and efficient prosecution of the litigation. The
proposed members are:
Chair: Mary Alexander of Mary Alexander & Associates, P.C., will oversee the Executive
Committee and be responsible for obtaining and maintaining time records and communications to
counsel.
Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 15 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Law and Briefing: Francis Bottini Jr. of Bottini & Bottini, Inc., will coordinate the research
and preparation of all pleadings and motions and assist in the preparation of oral arguments at any
hearings.
Defensive Discovery and Plaintiff Coordination: Gayle Blatt of Casey Gerry Francavilla
Blatt & Penfield LLP will coordinate all discovery obligations of and communications with Plaintiffs
and the Class.
Offensive Discovery and ESI Coordination: Natasha N. Serino of Schack Law Group,
together with Karin Swope of CPM, will coordinate all discovery propounded on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and the Class and coordinate ESI practices generally.
Third-Party Discovery: Kristin Kemnitzer of Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg will coordinate
all third-party discovery propounded on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the Class, assisted by P. Terry
Anderlini of Anderlini & McSweeney LLP.
Experts: Thomas Fraysse of Knox Ricksen LLP will handle and coordinate all expert
discovery and issues.
Damages: Jean Martin of Morgan & Morgan will coordinate efforts concerning damages.
These law firms were selected for their roles based on their knowledge, resources, and
experience. This is especially warranted given the amount of work this litigation may entail and the
need for expeditious resolution of this matter. A biography of each of the individuals and/or his or
her firm is attached as Exhibits 3 through 10 of the Joint Declaration.
B.
The Court Should Adopt the Proposed Structure
The Court “may designate interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before
determining whether to certify the action as a class action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3). “[D]esignation
of interim counsel clarifies responsibility for protecting the interests of the class during
precertification activities, such as making and responding to motions, conducting any necessary
discovery, moving for class certification, and negotiating settlement.” Manual § 21.11. Rule
23(g)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure identifies four factors to be considered by courts
when selecting interim class counsel:
Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 16 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(i)
The work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in
the action;
(ii)
Counsel’s experience in handling class action, other complex litigation, and
the types of claims asserted in the action;
(iii)
Counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law; and
(iv)
The resources that counsel will commit to representing the class.
Rule 23(g)(1)(B) further provides that courts may “consider any other matter pertinent to
counsel’s ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” Such considerations
include whether proposed interim class counsel have worked cooperatively with opposing counsel
and the court, and whether counsel commands the respect of colleagues. See Manual § 10.224.

Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel have met and conferred with one another to discuss what would be
most efficient, fair, and serve the best interests of the class. Jt. Decl. ¶¶ 3-5. The proposed Lead
Counsel and Executive Committee structure is the product of those collaborative discussions.
1.
Rule 23(g)(1)(A)(i): “The work counsel has done in identifying or
investigating potential claims in the action”

CPM filed the first of Plaintiffs’ related actions in the Northern District of California after
conducting a thorough investigation, which included obtaining and analyzing Bank of America’s
exclusive contract with EDD, as well as Bank of America’s customer agreements, SEC filings, press
releases, and other public statements. Not only has Proposed Lead Counsel identified and
investigated the claims against Bank of America, but since filing the Complaint they have
endeavored to uncover additional information about underlying allegations. To that end, CPM has
submitted additional public record requests to both EDD and the State Auditor, and reviewed
relevant legislative hearings and agency reports, including: “Employment Development Department:
EDD’s Poor Planning and Ineffective Management Left It Unprepared to Assist Californians
Unemployed by COVID‑19 Shutdowns” (Jan. 26, 2021), and “Employment Development
Department: Significant Weaknesses in EDD's Approach to Fraud Prevention Have Led to Billions
of Dollars in Improper Benefit Payments” (Jan. 28, 2021). Jt. Decl. ¶ 8.
Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 17 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Additionally, the filing of the Yick complaint generated substantial interest by the public and
the press. As a result, CPM has communicated with over seven hundred potential plaintiffs who
reached out to CPM following the filing of the Complaint, several of whom have retained CPM and
intend to serve as class representatives in this matter. These discussions reveal strong common
threads and detail facts which Proposed Lead Counsel intend to incorporate into a consolidated
amended complaint. Affidavits by many of these EDD Cardholders will also be used in the Motion
for Preliminary Injunction which Proposed Lead Counsel are currently preparing. Jt. Decl. ¶ 9.
2.
Rule 23(g)(1)(A)(ii): “Counsel’s experience in handling class action, other
complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the action”

Proposed Lead Counsel and proposed members of the Executive Committee easily meet this
criterion. CPM has obtained billions of dollars in recoveries for the classes it has represented. For
instance, as co-lead counsel, CPM secured a combined $219 million in In re Medical Capital
Securities Litigation, No. SA CV 09-1048-DOC-RNB (C.D. Cal.), one of the largest recoveries
against indenture trustees in U.S. history and the largest Ponzi recovery in California history. CPM
also secured a $77 million settlement as lead counsel in In re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM)
Antitrust Litigation, No. 4:07-md-01819-CW (N.D. Cal.). In In re Bextra and Celebrex Marketing
Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation, No. MDL-1699 (N.D. Cal.), CPM, as co-lead trial
counsel, secured $894 million to settle the consolidated injury and class action cases against Pfizer.
As co-lead counsel for the end-payor plaintiffs in In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 2:12-md-02311-SFC (E.D. Mich.), CPM helped recover over $1.2 billion. And recently, CPM
secured a settlement that provides for a non-reversionary minimum class settlement amount of $310
million, with a maximum class settlement amount of $500 million in In re Apple Inc. Device
Performance Litigation, No. 5:18-md-02827-EJD (N.D. Cal.). See Jt. Decl., Ex. 1.
Altshuler Berzon likewise has a long record of achieving outstanding results in consumer
protection class actions and other complex litigation, as well as on appeal. For example, as co-lead
counsel, Altshuler Berzon secured a landmark $115 million settlement in 2018 in the multi-district
litigation In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litigation, No. 15-MD-02617-LHK (N.D. Cal.), which
Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 18 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
was at the time the largest settlement ever reached in a data-breach class action. The MDL involved
80 million class members, hundreds of consumer class actions filed around the country, and over 50
plaintiff law firms and four defense firms. Altshuler Berzon also has substantial experience litigating
consumer protection class actions against banks and other financial institutions in particular,
including claims brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et
seq. (“UCL”), common-law claims of negligence and breach of contract, and statutory claims. In
addition to In re Anthem, other representative cases include Nobles v. MBNA Corp., No. C06-3723-
CRB (N.D. Cal.), in which the firm settled a California consumer class action alleging that a bank
misleadingly offered consumer lines of credit without disclosing hidden costs and credit impacts,
and Fanning et al. v. HSBC Card Services Inc. et al., No. 12-cv-00885-JVS (C.D. Cal.) and Lindgren
v. HSBC Card Services Inc. et al., No. 14-cv-05615-JVS (C.D. Cal.), in which the firm successfully
settled a statewide class action on behalf of California credit card holders alleging the bank secretly
recorded their telephone conversations without their consent. See Jt. Decl., Ex. 2.
Similarly, each member of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee has experience in class
actions and complex litigation, and is well matched for the role to which each member has been
assigned.
Mary Alexander has earned a national reputation for her work protecting consumer rights.
She has held leadership roles in high-profile class actions and obtained some of the largest and
highest profile verdicts and settlements in California over the course of her career. Her dedication to
her clients has won her numerous awards. She is a past president of both the Association of Trial
Lawyers of America (now American Association for Justice) and Consumer Attorneys of California,
and, in 2021, Ms. Alexander was inducted into the Law Dragon 500 Hall of Fame. See Jt. Decl.,
Ex. 3.
Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Managing Partner of Bottini & Bottini, Inc., has exclusively practiced
complex class action litigation for over 26 years, during which he has served as Lead or Co-Lead
Counsel in consumer, securities, and antitrust cases which have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for class members. Most recently, in 2020, Bottini & Bottini was Co-Lead Counsel in In re
Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 19 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Alphabet Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litig., Lead Case No. 19CV341522 (Santa Clara Sup. Ct.),
which resulted in a groundbreaking settlement, including Google’s commitment to eliminate
mandatory arbitration in cases alleging sexual harassment and discrimination; the establishment of
a Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Council including two members selected by Plaintiffs’ counsel; and
an agreement by Google to spend $310 million over ten years on workplace initiatives designed to
eliminate sexual harassment and discrimination and initiatives that support diversity, equity, and
inclusion. Bottini & Bottini also served as Co-Lead Counsel in In re Snap, Inc. Securities Cases,
JCCP No. 4960 (Los Angeles Sup. Ct.), in which the Court has granted preliminary approval of a
settlement providing a $32,812,500 recovery for shareholders who bought stock in Snap’s IPO. See
Jt. Decl., Ex. 4.
Gayle Blatt chairs Casey Gerry’s complex litigation team, having more than 30 years of
experience vindicating the rights of consumers and injury victims. She recently served as one of five
plaintiffs’ lawyers leading the Yahoo! data breach litigation (In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 16-MD-02752 (N.D. Cal.). Ms. Blatt also recently served on
the Executive Committee in In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, 18-md-02827-EJD,
MDL No. 2827 (N.D. Cal.) and will serve the putative class well by coordinating plaintiff discovery.
She brings a breadth of experience and is currently serving as class counsel in the In re Citrix Data
Breach Litigation, Case No. 19-cv-61350-RKA (S.D. Fla.) (preliminary approval granted), and
served on the law and briefing committee in the consolidated class action Adkins v. Facebook, Inc.,
Case No. 18-05982-WHA (N.D. Cal.) (preliminary approval granted.) In addition, she serves on the
Steering Committee in the In re Intel Corp. CPU Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability
Litigation, Case No. 3:18-md-02828-SI (D. Or.), where she has participated in the vetting and
coordination of nationwide plaintiffs. See Jt. Decl., Ex. 5.
Natasha Serino of Schack Law Group has successfully represented aggrieved consumers,
employees, and tort victims, including as lead trial counsel against Alaska Airlines, which resulted
in a $25 million verdict for flight attendants. Over her career she has also coordinated litigation in
data breach, fire, environmental tort, employment, and personal injury litigation, and currently
Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 20 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
serves as liaison counsel for In re Canyon Fires Litigation. See Jt. Decl., Ex. 6.
Kristin Kemnitzer is a managing partner at Kemnitzer Barron & Krieg LLP (KBK Legal).
The firm champions the rights of consumers and fights economic injustice. Ms. Kemnitzer has
represented hundreds of thousands of consumers in class actions against financial institutions. KBK
Legal attorneys have been appointed lead counsel in over 250 class actions, have obtained waivers
of over $3 billion in uncollectable debt, and have obtained recovery of over $500 million for
California consumers. See Jt. Decl., Ex. 7.
P. Terry Anderlini has over 50 years of experience representing clients in personal injury,
consumer, and malpractice cases. In 2018 he was named the San Mateo County Trial Lawyer of the
Year and has served as the President of the State Bar of California, the San Mateo County Bar
Association, and the Consumer Attorneys of California. He enjoys a well-earned reputation as one
of the leading trial attorneys in Northern California. See Jt. Decl., Ex. 8.
Thomas Fraysse of Knox Ricksen LLP leads the firm’s qui tam practice that focuses on fraud
and has successfully litigated dozens of complex actions recovering millions for clients as a result
of a string of multimillion-dollar judgments. His work, litigation experience and trial ability has
earned him recognition by the National Law Journal, the Daily Journal, and his peers, including
membership in the American Board of Trial Advocates. Besides being effective trial advocates,
Knox Ricksen LLP has pioneered the use of data analytics in presenting complicated matters to
juries. Mr. Fraysse currently serves as co-lead counsel in mass tort litigation involving the
manufacture, distribution, and implantation of counterfeit spinal fixation devices used in spinal
fusion surgeries. See Jt. Decl., Ex. 9.
Jean Martin of Morgan & Morgan concentrates her practice on data breach and consumer
class actions and presently serves as interim co-lead counsel in In re Morgan Stanley Data Security
Litigation, 1:20-cv-05914 (S.D.N.Y.), In re Ambry Genetics Data Breach Litigation, No. 20-cv-
00791 (C.D. Cal.), and In re Brinker Data Incident Litigation, No. 18-cv-686 (M.D. Fla.). Using
her background in econometrics, she is often called upon to work with experts to develop damages
Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 21 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
modeling as she is proposed to handle on behalf of the putative class in this case. See Jt. Decl.,
Ex. 10.
As demonstrated by the firm résumés and biographies attached to the Joint Declaration,
Proposed Lead Counsel and members of the Executive Committee clearly have the requisite
experience and knowledge necessary to effectively advance this litigation.
3.
Rule 23(g)(1)(A)(iii): “Counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law”

As indicated by their experience handling class actions and the significant recoveries
therefrom, it is undisputed that Proposed Lead Counsel and members of the Plaintiffs’ Executive
Committee are knowledgeable regarding the applicable law. Indeed, attorneys at CPM are some of
the founding members of the Consumer Attorneys of California and of Public Justice. Attorneys at
Altshuler Berzon have served as lead or co-lead counsel in multiple cases alleging violation of
consumer protection laws. From their impeccable résumés and careful vetting, the Court can be
assured that each of the lawyers selected for this matter is knowledgeable of the law and will be able
to efficiently handle all aspects of this litigation.
4.
Rule 23(g)(1)(A)(iv): “The resources that counsel will commit to
representing the class”

This litigation asserts federal and state statutory claims, and numerous common law claims
arising under California law. More importantly, the putative class consists of hundreds of thousands
of EDD Cardholders throughout California in need of timely relief. A litigation of this magnitude
“justifies the pooling of resources and experience.” In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer
Privacy Litig., No. 12-2358-SLR, 2012 WL 5833604, at *1 (D. Del. Nov. 16, 2012) (citing In re
Exford Health Plans, Inc. Sec. Litig., 182 F.R.D. 42, 46 (S.D.N.Y.1998)); Outten v. Wilmington
Trust Corp., 281 F.R.D. 193, 199 (D. Del. 2012); In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM)
Antitrust Litig., No. M 02–1486 PJH, 2006 WL 1530166, at *11 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2006)); see also
Lowery v. Spotify USA Inc., No. CV 15-09929-BRO (RAOx), 2016 WL 6818756, at *5 (C.D. Cal.
May 23, 2016) (noting the Court “must appoint the applicant best able to represent the interests of
the class”) (citation omitted).
Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 22 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Here, Proposed Lead Counsel and members of the Executive Committee have the resources
necessary to finance a case of this magnitude. Indeed, having been responsible for achieving some
of the largest class action recoveries in some of the most complex, high-profile class actions,
Proposed Lead Counsel and members of the Executive Committee understand what is required to
undertake a litigation of this size and will commit whatever resources are necessary to achieve a
favorable result for the class.
At the same time, Proposed Lead Counsel and members of the Executive Committee are
aware of the need to control costs and expenses. Should this structure be approved by the Court,
Proposed Lead Counsel will, within 10 business days, submit a timekeeping and cost reporting
protocol for approval by the Court that would require all plaintiffs’ counsel to maintain a
contemporaneous record of their time and expenses incurred in connection with this litigation. And,
to the extent that there are any issues as to fees and expenses should the litigation be successfully
resolved, the Court will “have an independent obligation to ensure that” fees and expenses are
“reasonable, even if the parties have already agreed to an amount.” In re Bluetooth Headset Prod.
Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 2011).
5.
Rule 23(g)(1)(B): “Any other matter pertinent to counsel’s ability to
fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class”

Given the complexity of this litigation, the number of putative class members, its scope, and
the need to proceed in an expedited manner, it is clear that this litigation requires a robust structure.
When these facts are present, courts often approve similarly sized and structured leadership. For
instance, in Volkswagen, Judge Breyer appointed 22 individuals and their law firms to a steering
committee, specifically noting that “the Court believes this is an appropriate number given the
amount of work this litigation may entail and the need for an expeditious resolution of this matter.”
See Pretrial Order No. 7 [ECF No. 1084]. Judge Breyer also approved approximately 100 additional
law firms over the course of the Volkswagen litigation. See Pretrial Order No. 11 [ECF No. 1254].
In In re Digitek Products Liability Litigation, No. 2:08-md-01968 (S.D. W. Va.), the court appointed
a three-firm co-lead counsel and steering committee of 19 individuals and their law firms. See id.,
Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 23 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Pretrial Order No. 4, dated Nov. 5, 2008 [ECF No. 51-1]. The court later added three more
individuals and their law firms to the steering committee (with one resignation), together comprising
24 individuals and their respective law firms. See id., Pretrial Order No. 23, dated May 29, 2009
[ECF No. 129]. And, in In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico,
on April 20, 2010, No. 2:10-md-02179-CJB-SS (E.D. La.), the court appointed a 19 member
plaintiffs’ steering committee. See id., Pretrial Order No. 8, dated Oct. 8, 2010 [ECF No. 506]. Given
the size and scope of this litigation, the structure brought forth by Plaintiffs is therefore
commensurate to the needs of the case.
Finally, where the majority of plaintiffs’ counsel agree to a leadership structure, courts
generally approve the structure based on the concept of “private ordering.” Manual § 21.272; see In
re Lenovo Adware Litig., No. 15-md-02624, 2015 WL 10890657, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2015)
(finding that support of majority of plaintiffs and counsel is “indicative of their ability to work
cooperatively on behalf” of the plaintiffs). As long as the proposal for leadership is fair, proposes
qualified class counsel, and has opportunities for representation for all firms, then the efforts of
plaintiffs’ counsel to coordinate amongst themselves is something that is to be encouraged and given
significant deference. Manual § 10.22.
IV.
CONCLUSION

For the reasons indicated, the Court should grant consolidation and/or coordination of the
actions. Moreover, the Court should appoint Proposed Lead Counsel and the proposed Executive
Committee. Proposed Lead Counsel has demonstrated that it is best equipped to serve as interim co-
lead counsel in this litigation, with the assistance and knowledge provided by the members of the
proposed Executive Committee. The firms have demonstrated the best understanding of the relevant
factual and legal issues presented in these cases and have the resources and experience to see them
through to a successful and efficient resolution.

Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 24 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Respectfully submitted,
Dated:  February 12, 2021
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP

By:
/s/ Brian Danitz

BRIAN DANITZ

Attorneys for Plaintiff Jennifer Yick
and the Proposed Class

Dated:  February 12, 2021
ALTSHULER BERZON, LLP

By:
/s/ Michael Rubin

MICHAEL RUBIN

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Roland Oosthuizen,
Rosemary Mathews and the Proposed Class

Adam McNeile
Kristin Kemnitzer
KEMNITZER, BARRON, & KRIEG, LLP
42 Miller Avenue, 3rd Floor
Mill Valley, CA  94941
Telephone:  (415) 632-1900
Facsimile:  (415) 632-1901

David S. Casey, Jr.
Gayle M. Blatt
Jeremy Robinson
P. Camille Guerra
Catherin M. McBain
CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA
BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA  92101
Telephone:  (619) 238-1811
Facsimile:  (619) 544-9232

Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 25 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Jean S. Martin
MORGAN & MORGAN
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL  33602
Telephone:  (813) 223-5505

Natasha N. Serino
Shannon F. Nocon
SCHACK LAW GROUP
16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
San Diego, CA  92127
Telephone:  (858) 485-6535
Facsimile:  (858) 485-0608

Francis A. Bottini, Jr.
Anne B. Beste
Albert Y. Chang
Yury A. Kolesnikov
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
La Jolla, CA  92037
Telephone:  (858) 914-2001
Facsimile:  (858) 914-2002

P. Terry Anderlini
Joseph M. Goethals
Jackson D. Morgus
ANDERLINI & McSWEENEY, LLP
66 Bovet Road, Suite 285
San Mateo, CA  94402
Telephone:  (650) 212-0001
Facsimile:  (650) 212-0081

Thomas E. Fraysse
Maisie C. Sokolove
Amanda M. Plowman
KNOX RICKSEN, LLP
2033 N. Main Street, Suite 340
Walnut Creek, CA  94596
Telephone:  (925) 433-2500
Facsimile:  (925) 433-2505

Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 26 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mary E. Alexander
Brendan D.S. Way
Arin R. Scapa
Catalina S. Munoz
MARY ALEXANDER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1303
San Francisco, CA  94104
Telephone:  (415) 433-4440
Facsimile:  (415) 433-5440

Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 27 of 28

Joint Motion to Consolidate Related Actions and Appoint Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy
and Altshuler Berzon as Interim Co-Lead Counsel, and Proposed Executive Committee;
Case No. 3:21-CV-00376-VC
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE

I, Brian Danitz, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file
this NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION, AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION TO:  (1) CONSOLIDATE RELATED
ACTIONS; (2) APPOINT COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP AND ALTSHULER
BERZON LLP AS INTERIM CO-LEAD COUNSEL, AND PROPOSED EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that all other signatories to
this document concurred in its filing.

/s/ Brian Danitz

BRIAN DANITZ

Case 3:21-cv-00376-VC   Document 34   Filed 02/12/21   Page 28 of 28

File and source

File

CASE_CAND_3-21-cv-00376_Yick-v-BofA_doc34_MOTION-CONSOLIDATE_2021-02-12.pdf

Size

596,800 bytes

SHA-256

f3856e3dd02bf64aa11a981beccef48a0dd76119667675a425aa38c99a6dd1eb

Our copy

CASE_CAND_3-21-cv-00376_Yick-v-BofA_doc34_MOTION-CONSOLIDATE_2021-02-12.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com