Motion For — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, 21-md-2992-LAB-MSB

What This Document Is

A three-page order, signed and entered August 1, 2023 by Judge Larry Alan Burns, granting Plaintiffs' unopposed Doc. 141 ex parte application (already summarized in this docket) for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's May 25, 2023 order (Doc. 126) dismissing their UCL claim with prejudice, and setting a briefing schedule.

Factual Summary

The Court recounts that its May 25 order relied on Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020), which requires a plaintiff to establish the lack of an adequate legal remedy before securing equitable UCL restitution, and dismissed Plaintiffs' UCL claim with prejudice for failing to allege inadequate legal remedies. Applying its Standing Order's three-part standard for leave to seek reconsideration (new evidence, change in controlling law, or clear error), the Court finds Plaintiffs' application satisfies the procedural requirements (timely filed within 28 days, accompanied by a declaration per Civil Local Rule 7.1(i)) and, on the substance, finds its own May 25 order "didn't adequately address" four points Plaintiffs raised: the distinction between prospective injunctive relief and Sonner's "equitable restitution for past harm"; the availability of legal remedies for BofA's allegedly "unfair" (versus "unlawful") practices; whether the UCL dismissal should have included leave to amend; and whether Ninth Circuit precedent requires equitable-jurisdiction dismissals to be without prejudice. The application is GRANTED, with Plaintiffs' motion due by August 7, 2023 (20-page limit), BofA's opposition due August 14, 2023 (20-page limit), Plaintiffs' reply due August 21, 2023 (10-page limit), and a hearing set for August 28, 2023.

Key Facts

Signed and entered 2023-08-01; Doc. 148, 21-md-2992-LAB-MSB.
Grants Doc. 141 (Plaintiffs' unopposed ex parte application for leave to move for reconsideration).
Court itself identifies four points its own May 25, 2023 MTD order (Doc. 126) failed to adequately address regarding the UCL claim's with-prejudice dismissal.
Sets the briefing schedule that produced Doc. 151 (Plaintiffs' motion), the BofA opposition, and Plaintiffs' reply.
The resulting reconsideration motion was ultimately granted at Doc. 297 (already summarized in this docket).

Source Caveats

Text extracted cleanly from a three-page, text-native PDF; no OCR, seal, or redaction issues.
This page's web address is built from a mid-sentence fragment of the document's own text rather than a title, as with other pages in this docket. The address is kept unchanged.

Date: 2023-05-25

Full text

1
21-md-2992-LAB-MSB
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: BANK OF AMERICA
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS LITIGATION

Case No.: 21-md-2992-LAB-MSB

ORDER:

1) GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION,
(Dkt. 141); and

2) SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE

Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application for Leave to File a Motion for
Reconsideration (“Application”). (Dkt. 141). Plaintiffs seek leave to file a motion
for reconsideration of the Court’s May 25, 2023 Order dismissing with prejudice
their claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Bus. & Prof. Code
§§ 17200 et seq. (Dkt. 126 at 31–33). Plaintiffs’ Application is unopposed.
The Court’s May 25 Order relied on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Sonner v.
Premier Nutrition Corp., which held that a plaintiff “must establish that she lacks
an adequate remedy at law before securing equitable restitution for past harm
under the UCL.” 971 F.3d 834, 844 (9th Cir. 2020). Applying Sonner to Plaintiffs’
claims, the Court found that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the UCL
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 148     Filed 08/01/23     PageID.1834     Page 1
of 3

2
21-md-2992-LAB-MSB
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
because they “plead[ed] claims for equitable relief under the UCL but [didn’t]
allege inadequate legal remedies.” (See Dkt. 126 at 33). The Court dismissed
Plaintiffs’ UCL claims with prejudice. (Id.).
Before a party may file a motion for reconsideration, the party must first
obtain leave of Court. See Standing Order in Civil Cases 3(e). The Court will grant
leave to file a motion for reconsideration only if the moving party can show:
“(1) there is new evidence; or (2) a change in controlling law; or (3) the Court
committed clear error in making the earlier ruling.”1 Id.
Plaintiffs argue the Court made four clear errors of law when dismissing their
UCL claims with prejudice:
(1) overlooking that Plaintiffs’ UCL claim sought
prospective injunctive relief based on future irreparable
harms for which no legal remedies exist; (2) overlooking
that Plaintiffs’ UCL claim alleged that the Bank’s
challenged
practices,
even
if
not
“unlawful,” are
nonetheless actionable under the UCL as “unfair”
practices, for which no legal remedies are available;
(3) dismissing the UCL claim without leave to amend even
though, if amendment were permitted, Plaintiffs could
allege inadequate legal remedies; and (4) dismissing the
UCL claim with prejudice to Plaintiffs’ ability to refile that
claim in state court, which is contrary to Ninth Circuit
precedent governing dismissals for lack of equitable
jurisdiction.
(Dkt. 141 at 1 (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted)).
//
//
//

1 The undersigned judge’s Standing Order in Civil Cases also requires the moving
party to file their application for leave within 28 days of the order sought to be
reconsidered and to file a declaration with any such application, as required by
Civil Local Rule 7.1(i). Plaintiffs’ Application satisfies both requirements.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 148     Filed 08/01/23     PageID.1835     Page 2
of 3

3
21-md-2992-LAB-MSB
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
The Court has carefully read its May 25 Order, (Dkt. 126), and Plaintiffs’
Application, (Dkt. 141), and finds the May 25 Order didn’t adequately address:
(1) the distinction between the prospective injunctive relief sought by the MCC
and the “equitable restitution for past harm” sought in Sonner, 971 F.3d at 844;
(2) the availability of legal remedies for Defendant Bank of America, N.A.’s
(“BANA”) allegedly “unfair” practices; (3) whether the MCC’s UCL claim should
have been dismissed with leave to amend; and (4) whether Ninth Circuit
precedent requires dismissals for lack of equitable jurisdiction be without
prejudice.
Plaintiffs’ Application is GRANTED, and the Court ORDERS as follows:
1)
Plaintiffs may file their motion for reconsideration on or before
August 7, 2023. Plaintiffs’ brief supporting their motion must not
exceed 20 pages.
2)
BANA may file an opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion on or before August
14, 2023. BANA’s opposition must not exceed 20 pages.
3)
Plaintiffs may file a reply to any opposition on or before August 21,
2023. Plaintiffs’ reply must not exceed 10 pages.
4)
The Court sets August 28, 2023 at 11:30 a.m. as a hearing date for
Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:  August 1, 2023
Hon. Larry Alan Burns
United States District Judge

Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 148     Filed 08/01/23     PageID.1836     Page 3
of 3

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.casd.709615.148.0.pdf
Size: 284,522 bytes
SHA-256: 2fcfa3826c522fe14f2acb833669c96cbfc4e21507b58930755c4d8ff143bdfa
Our copy: gov.uscourts.casd.709615.148.0.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)