Full text
PARTIAL MTD FAMCC CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-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
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
JAMES W. MCGARRY (admitted pro hac vice)
JMcGarry@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Tel.: +1 617 570 1000
Fax: +1 617 523 1231
YVONNE W. CHAN (admitted pro hac vice)
YChan@jonesday.com
JONES DAY
100 High Street
Boston, MA 02110
Tel.: +1 617 960 3939
Fax: +1 617 449 6999
Attorneys for Defendant
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
[ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED IN SIGNATURE BLOCK]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN DIEGO DIVISION
IN RE: BANK OF AMERICA
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS LITIGATION
Case No. 21-MD-02992-LAB-MSB
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S
PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
THE FIRST AMENDED MASTER
CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P.
12(b)(6)
Date: October 2, 2023
Time: 11:30 a.m. PST
Ctrm: 14A – 14th Floor
Judge: Hon. Larry Alan Burns
Filed/Lodged Concurrently with:
1. Notice of Motion and Partial
Motion to Dismiss
2. [Proposed] Order
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1797 Page
1 of 36
i
PARTIAL MTD FAMCC
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-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
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
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
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
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(s)
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................... 2
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 2
I.
THE DISMISSED CLAIMS THAT PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO
AMEND SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. .......................... 2
II.
PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDMENTS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO CURE
THE DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED IN THE MTD ORDER. ...................... 5
A.
THE “FREEZE ONLY” PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDMENTS
STILL DO NOT STATE A CLAIM UNDER EFTA. ......................... 6
B.
PLAINTIFF JENNIFER YICK’S AMENDMENTS DOOM
HER CONTRACT CLAIM. ................................................................. 8
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 11
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1798 Page
2 of 36
ii
PARTIAL MTD FAMCC
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-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
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
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
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
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
Beaver v. Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp.,
2021 WL 5042116 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2021) ....................................................... 3
Gerson Inst. v. Huntington,
2011 WL 883762 (S.D. Cal. March 11, 2011) ..................................................... 3
Hardin v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
2022 WL 3568568 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 18, 2022) .................................................. 7
Lazar v. City of Los Angeles,
2010 WL 1583566 (9th Cir. April 21, 2010) ....................................................... 3
Partanen v. W. U.S. Pipe Band Ass’n,
2021 WL 5145246 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2021) ...................................................... 5
Rupe v. Cate,
2012 WL 259387 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2012) ......................................................... 3
Sanders v. Laidlaw Educ. Srvcs.,
2006 WL 8441688 (C.D. Cal. April 12, 2006) .................................................... 3
Watson v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
2016 WL 6581846 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016) ....................................................... 3
Statutes
15 U.S.C. § 1693f .................................................................................................. 6, 7
Other Authorities
12 C.F.R. § 1005.11 ........................................................................................... 6, 7, 8
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1799 Page
3 of 36
1
PARTIAL MTD FAMCC
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-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
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
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
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
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
INTRODUCTION
As the Court is aware, this multidistrict litigation involves the distribution of
California state unemployment benefits through prepaid debit cards issued by Bank
of America, N.A. (“BANA”) pursuant to a contract with the state agency responsible
for administration of unemployment benefits, the California Employment
Development Department (“EDD”). The Court previously examined Plaintiffs’
lengthy Master Consolidated Complaint (Dkt. 72) thoroughly and in detail in
response to BANA’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 84). The Court’s Order Granting in
Part and Denying in Part BANA’s Motion to Dismiss the Master Consolidated
Complaint (“MTD Order”) (Dkt. 126) allowed some claims and theories to proceed,
dismissed some with prejudice, and dismissed others with leave to amend, giving
Plaintiffs very clear explanations of the deficiencies and equally clear instructions for
amendment. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Master Consolidated
Complaint (“FAMCC”) (Dkt. 136) continues to suffer from fatal deficiencies with
respect to certain claims and theories. Those claims and theories, which do not satisfy
either the requirements of Rule 12(b)(6) or the standards articulated by the Court in
the MTD Order, must now be dismissed with prejudice.
BANA therefore files this partial motion to dismiss in order to address two
principal defects in the FAMCC:
First, with respect to certain of the claims and legal theories that were
dismissed with leave to amend, Plaintiffs chose not to exercise that leave,
conceding (in multiple places) that they “are unable to amend this claim at
this time.” See e.g., FAMCC at p. 280, n.33. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs
continue to assert those claims in the FAMCC. Because Plaintiffs concede
that they cannot remedy the deficiencies identified by the Court, those
claims and legal theories (including claims for violations of the California
Consumer Privacy Act based on BANA’s handling of Plaintiffs’ personal
information, the entirety of the California Customer Records Act claim,
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1800 Page
4 of 36
2
PARTIAL MTD FAMCC
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-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
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
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
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
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
claims for negligence per se based on violations of the California Financial
Information Privacy Act and California Customer Records Act, and nearly
every Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim) should now be dismissed with
prejudice.
Second, certain of Plaintiffs’ attempts at amendment fail. Numerous
individual Plaintiffs continue to fail to allege a “qualifying error” as
required to state an EFTA claim. And Plaintiff Yick’s amended allegation
that she has been reimbursed by BANA dooms her contract claim for the
reasons previously articulated by the Court. BANA asks that the Court
dismiss these claims with prejudice as well.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed a number of individual and class actions against BANA in the
federal district courts in California, challenging BANA’s efforts to manage the
unprecedented surge in unemployment fraud prompted by the COVID-19
pandemic. In June 2021, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated
the actions in this district. (Dkt. 1). The Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a Master
Consolidated Complaint, which they did in August 2021. (Dkt. 72). BANA moved
to dismiss the Master Consolidated Complaint (Dkt. 84), and on May 25, 2023, this
Court issued the MTD Order which granted in part and denied in part BANA’s
motion. (Dkt. 126). With respect to the parts of BANA’s motion that were granted,
certain of Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice, and certain of Plaintiffs’
claims were dismissed with leave to amend. See generally, MTD Order. On June
13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the FAMCC. (Dkt. 136).
ARGUMENT
I.
THE DISMISSED CLAIMS THAT PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO AMEND SHOULD BE
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
In the MTD Order, this Court dismissed with leave to amend certain claims
entirely and certain claims with respect to some theories but not others. See
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1801 Page
5 of 36
3
PARTIAL MTD FAMCC
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-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
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
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
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
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
generally, MTD Order. On a number of these claims and theories, Plaintiffs failed
to exercise the leave granted by the MTD Order and conceded in the FAMCC that
they “are unable to amend this claim at this time.” See e.g., FAMCC at p. 280, n.33.
Those claims and theories should now be dismissed with prejudice.1
In this Circuit, it is undisputed that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate
when leave to amend is granted but not exercised. See Lazar v. City of Los Angeles,
2010 WL 1583566, *1 (9th Cir. April 21, 2010) (“dismissal of the complaint with
prejudice” appropriate where plaintiff “failed to amend the complaint after obtaining
leave to do so”); Gerson Inst. v. Huntington, 2011 WL 883762, *4 (S.D. Cal. March
11, 2011) (“Because [Plaintiff] has failed to amend these claims successfully, they
will be dismissed without leave to amend.”); see also Beaver v. Omni Hotels Mgmt.
Corp., 2021 WL 5042116, *2 n.3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2021) (“As Plaintiffs chose not
to amend [certain claims that were dismissed with leave], the Court dismisses those
causes of action without leave to amend.”). This rule applies to claims that were
dismissed entirely as well as to dismissals of particular theories. See, e.g., Watson v.
Bank of Am., N.A., 2016 WL 6581846, *4-9 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2016) (dismissing
claims based on some but not all legal theories with prejudice after plaintiff failed to
amend after leave); Sanders v. Laidlaw Educ. Srvcs., 2006 WL 8441688, * 3 (C.D.
Cal. April 12, 2006) (dismissing Title VII claim based on retaliation theory “with
prejudice” for failure to amend that theory “in a meaningful manner” after being
previously granted leave to do so).
1 The FAMCC also continues to improperly assert claims that the MTD Order
dismissed with prejudice, including claims for violations of the California Unfair
Competition Law (Claim 4), contract claims on behalf of Plaintiffs who have been
fully reimbursed (Claim 7), breach of implied contract claims (Claim 8), and claims
for breach of contract as third-party beneficiaries of BANA’s contract with EDD
(Claims 11 and 12). These claims were fully and permanently dismissed by the MTD
Order, are no longer part of this case, and require no response. See Rupe v. Cate,
2012 WL 259387, *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2012) (“When answering Plaintiffs’ Second
Amended Complaint, Defendants do not need to respond to the [previously]
dismissed claims . . . .”). BANA will address Plaintiffs’ arguments for
reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of their California Unfair Competition Law
claims (Claim 4) if the Court allows Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File
Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. 141).
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1802 Page
6 of 36
4
PARTIAL MTD FAMCC
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-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
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
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
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
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 should follow this precedent here, and dismiss with prejudice the
following claims and theories that Plaintiffs failed to amend:
Claims for violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act based on
Plaintiffs’ theory regarding unsecure data collection and storage (Claim 2),
as Plaintiffs concede that they “are unable to amend this claim at this time,”
(FAMCC at p. 276, n.32);
Claims for violation of the California Customer Records Act (Claim 3), as
Plaintiffs concede they “are unable to amend this claim at this time,”
(FAMCC at p. 280, n.33); and
Claims for negligence per se based on violations of the California Financial
Information Privacy Act and California Customer Records Act (Claim 5),
which Plaintiffs concede they “are unable at this time to amend based on
violations of the CFIPA or the CCRA,” (FAMCC at p. 288, n.35).
Plaintiffs also concede that they cannot amend their allegations to state a breach
of contract claim (Claim 7) for those Plaintiffs whose claims were dismissed in the
MTD Order. See FAMCC at p. 297, n.36. Plaintiffs brought breach of contract
claims against BANA for alleged breach of the Cardholder Agreement based on three
theories: first, Plaintiffs alleged that BANA breached the claim investigation and
reimbursement provisions contained in Section 9 and Section 11 of the Cardholder
Agreement; second, Plaintiffs alleged that BANA breached the provisions in Section
2 of the Cardholder Agreement that allow BANA to freeze accounts on suspicion of
fraud; and third, Plaintiffs alleged that BANA breached provisions in Section 2 of
the Cardholder Agreement that require BANA to fund accounts at EDD’s instruction.
On Plaintiffs’ first theory, the Section 9 and 11 contract claims brought by
Plaintiffs who alleged their claims were reimbursed by BANA were
dismissed with prejudice. See MTD Order at 51.2 The remaining Section 9
2 As noted supra note 1, Plaintiffs continue to assert the contract claims of fully-
reimbursed Plaintiffs despite their dismissal with prejudice. The FAMCC’s
allegations that certain Plaintiffs who were fully credited did not receive interest (see,
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1803 Page
7 of 36
5
PARTIAL MTD FAMCC
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-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
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
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
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
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
and 11 claims were dismissed with leave to amend as to all Plaintiffs except
for Plaintiffs Yick, Smith, Burns, and Horath, whose Section 9 and 11
contract claims were allowed to proceed. MTD Order at 52. (However,
Plaintiff Yick’s amendments regarding reimbursement doom her contract
claim, as explained infra at 8.)
On Plaintiffs’ second theory, the Section 2 contract claims based on account
freezes were dismissed with leave to amend as to all Plaintiffs. MTD Order
at 53, 54.
On Plaintiffs’ third theory, the Section 2 contract claims based on EDD
instructions were also dismissed with leave to amend as to all Plaintiffs. Id.
As to all the contract claims that were dismissed with leave to amend (under
all three theories), the FAMCC concedes that “Plaintiffs are unable to amend those
claims at this time.” FAMCC at 302, n.36. Therefore, the contract claims as to all
Plaintiffs, except for the Section 9 and 11 theories for Plaintiffs Smith, Burns and
Horath, should now be dismissed with prejudice (to be clear, Plaintiffs Smith, Burns
and Horath’s contract claims under the second and third theories, based on alleged
violations of Section 2, should also be dismissed with prejudice).3
II.
PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDMENTS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO CURE THE DEFICIENCIES
IDENTIFIED IN THE MTD ORDER.
As for the dismissed claims that Plaintiffs attempted to amend, certain of those
attempts still fail. A number of individual Plaintiffs continue to fail to plead a
“qualifying error” as required to state an EFTA claim. And Plaintiff Yick’s
e.g., FAMCC at ¶¶ 159, 169) do not save these contract claims from dismissal
because (i) the Cardholder Agreement does not provide for interest, and (ii) those
Plaintiffs whose contract claims were previously dismissed on the basis of
reimbursement were dismissed with prejudice, and cannot be resurrected through
amendment. Partanen v. W. U.S. Pipe Band Ass’n, 2021 WL 5145246, at *14 (E.D.
Cal., Nov. 4, 2021).
3 A list of the Plaintiffs whose Section 9 and 11 contract claims in the FAMCC are
subject to dismissal are identified in Column E of Appendix A filed herewith (all
Plaintiffs’ Section 2 contract claims should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to
amend those allegations).
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1804 Page
8 of 36
6
PARTIAL MTD FAMCC
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-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
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
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
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
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
amendment to concede that she has been reimbursed by BANA dooms her contract
claim. These claims also should be dismissed with prejudice.
A.
The “Freeze Only” Plaintiffs’ Amendments Still Do Not State A
Claim Under EFTA.
First, individual Plaintiffs who continue to allege only account freezes or
restrictions do not state a claim under EFTA. As the Court held, “[n]either EFTA
nor Reg E lists account freezes as a qualifying error.” MTD Order at 15; see also 15
U.S.C. § 1693f(f); 12 C.F.R. § 1005.11(a)(1). Plaintiffs conceded as much, but
argued that a request for “additional information” is among the “qualifying errors”
specified in EFTA and its implementing Regulation, Regulation E. See MTD Order
at 15. The Court dismissed the EFTA claims of those individual Plaintiffs “who
reported account freezes only,” subject to their ability to plead that they made
information requests to BANA that were “qualifying error[s]” under the statute.
MTD Order at 15-16. In the FAMCC, certain individual Plaintiffs amended their
freeze-only allegations to provide additional information about their account freezes,
recharacterize their account freezes as “restricted access” to their accounts, and allege
that they asked BANA for “additional information regarding the restriction.” See,
e.g., Plaintiff Flores, FAMCC ¶ 357.4
These allegations still fail to state a claim under EFTA. Both EFTA and
Regulation E contain provisions defining qualifying errors for purposes of the statute.
See 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(f) (EFTA definition of “acts constituting error”); 12 C.F.R. §
1005.11(a) (Reg E “[d]efinition of error”). As the Court recognized in the MTD
Order (at 15-16), both definitions make clear that an information request must
concern an electronic fund transfer to qualify as an error under the statute:
EFTA’s information request provision states that a qualifying “error”
includes “a consumer’s request for additional information or clarification
4 A list of the Plaintiffs whose EFTA claims in the FAMCC still fail to allege a
qualifying error and therefore are subject to dismissal are identified in Column D of
Appendix A filed herewith.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1805 Page
9 of 36
7
PARTIAL MTD FAMCC
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-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
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
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
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
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
concerning an electronic fund transfer,” (15 U.S.C. § 1693f(f)(6)
(emphasis added)); and
Regulation E’s information request provision similarly states that a
qualifying “error” includes “[t]he consumer’s request for . . . additional
information or clarification concerning an electronic fund transfer,
including a request the customer makes to determine whether an error exists
[as defined by] this section,” (12 C.F.R. § 1005.11(a)(1)(vii) (emphasis
added)).
In Hardin v. Bank of Am., N.A., another case regarding BANA’s handling of
pandemic fraud claims, the court clarified the narrow scope of the qualifying error
definitions, dismissing the plaintiffs’ EFTA claims even though they had requested
information from BANA about their accounts because the requests did not
specifically concern an electronic fund transfer. See Hardin v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
2022 WL 3568568, *3 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 18, 2022). As the court explained, “requests
for additional information or clarification apply only to requests ‘concerning an
electronic fund transfer.’” Id. (emphasis added). The court found that because
“[n]either [plaintiff] requested information or clarification about an electronic funds
transfer,” their allegations about requests for additional information from BANA
were not qualifying errors and thus did not state a claim under EFTA. Id. (emphasis
added).
The freeze- or restricted access-only Plaintiffs’ allegations in the FAMCC,
even as amended, fail for the same reason. These Plaintiffs allege only that they
called BANA to request, for example, “all the information [BANA] relied upon
which caused the freeze of [the] account,” (Plaintiff Blacksands, FAMCC ¶ 309) or
“additional information regarding the restriction” (Plaintiff Flores, FAMCC ¶ 357).
None of them allege that their calls to BANA regarding their frozen or restricted
accounts were “request[s] for additional information or clarification concerning an
electronic fund transfer” as required by EFTA. 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(f)(6) (emphasis
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1806 Page
10 of 36
8
PARTIAL MTD FAMCC
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-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
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
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
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
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
added); see also 12 C.F.R. § 1005.11(a)(1)(vii). None of these Plaintiffs have
identified the electronic fund transfer that they sought information or clarification
about. In fact, these Plaintiffs make no allegations regarding any electronic fund
transfers on their accounts at all; rather, their allegations are that they sought
information about freezes or restrictions that prevented transfers on their accounts.
Their EFTA claims therefore do not allege a “qualifying error,” and should be
dismissed with prejudice.
B.
Plaintiff Jennifer Yick’s Amendments Doom Her Contract Claim.
Second, Plaintiff Yick’s Section 9 and 11 contract claim should now be
dismissed, with prejudice, because Yick amended her allegations to state that her
unauthorized transaction claims have been reimbursed in full by BANA. FAMCC ¶
126. Under the MTD Order, “any Plaintiff that has been completely reimbursed can’t
recover contract damages, and can’t state a claim for breach of contract.” MTD Order
at p. 51. Thus, Yick’s Section 9 and 11 contract claim, as amended, must be
dismissed with prejudice (as noted above, Yick’s contract claims based on both
theories of alleged violations of Section 2 were dismissed with leave to amend by the
MTD Order, at 53-54, and should now be dismissed with prejudice because Yick
failed to amend those allegations, see supra 5-6).5
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, BANA respectfully requests that the Court dismiss
the following claims and theories with prejudice:
EFTA claims for those Plaintiffs who allege only an account freeze or
restriction, as identified in Column D of Appendix A (Claim 1);
5 Other Plaintiffs also amended their allegations to reflect either that they have been
reimbursed by BANA (e.g., Plaintiff Zoelle, FAMCC ¶ 249) or that they cannot plead
that they have not been reimbursed by BANA (e.g., Plaintiff Hicks, FAMCC ¶ 260,
n. 17, and Plaintiff Blankenship, FAMCC ¶ 284, both conceding they do not know
whether they were reimbursed). These Plaintiffs’ contract claims were already
dismissed with leave to amend, and should now be dismissed with prejudice, as
explained supra at 5-6, due to Plaintiffs’ inability to amend. Their amendments
regarding reimbursement provide yet another reason to dismiss their contract claims
with prejudice.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1807 Page
11 of 36
9
PARTIAL MTD FAMCC
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-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
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
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
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
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
All Plaintiffs’ claims for violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act
based on Plaintiffs’ unsecure data collection and storage theory (Claim 2);
All Plaintiffs’ claims for violation of the California Customer Records Act
(Claim 3);
All Plaintiffs’ claims for negligence per se based on violations of the
California Information Privacy Act and California Customer Records Act
(Claim 5); and
All breach of contract claims for all Plaintiffs except for the Section 9 and
11 claims for Plaintiffs Smith, Burns and Horath, as identified in Column
E of Appendix A (Claim 7).
Dated: July 11, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ James W. McGarry_________
JAMES W. MCGARRY (pro hac vice)
JMcGarry@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Tel.: +1 617 570 1000
Fax: +1 617 523 1231
THOMAS M. HEFFERON (pro hac vice)
THefferon@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
1900 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: +1 202 346 4000
Fax: +1 202 346 4444
YVONNE W. CHAN (pro hac vice)
YChan@jonesday.com
JONES DAY
100 High Street
Boston, MA 02110
Tel.: +1 617 960 3939
Fax: +1 617 449 6999
JANICE P. BROWN (SBN 114433)
jbrown@myersnave.com
MATTHEW B. NAZARETH (SBN
278405)
mnazareth@myersnave.com
MEYERS NAVE
600 B Street, Suite 1650
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1808 Page
12 of 36
10
PARTIAL MTD FAMCC
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-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
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
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
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
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
San Diego, CA 92101
Attorneys for Defendant
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1809 Page
13 of 36
11
PARTIAL MTD FAMCC
CASE NO. 21-MD-02992-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
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
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
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
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
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the
court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California by
using the CM/ECF system on July 11, 2023. I further certify that all participants in
the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the
CM/ECF system. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Executed:
July 11, 2023
/s/ James W. McGarry
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1810 Page
14 of 36
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1811 Page
15 of 36
Appendix A
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1)
Reason for Dismissal of
Section 9 and 11
Contract Claim
(Claim 7)
Abarr
Paul
¶ 286
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Abbot
Kobe
¶ 287
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Adams
Michael
¶ 289
N/A
Aders
Jordan
¶ 288
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Aguirre
Jonathan
¶ 290
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Allison
Christopher
¶ 291
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Alvarez
Kevin
¶ 292
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Alvarez
Courtney
¶ 293
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Alvarez
Rosa
¶ 294
N/A
Anderson
David
¶ 295
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Anderson
Rebekah
¶ 296
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Andrade
Amanda
¶ 297
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Anistik
Sheila
¶ 299
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Arnoldstarr
Robert
¶ 300
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Claim
Plaintiff
1
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1812 Page
16 of 36
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1)
Reason for Dismissal of
Section 9 and 11
Contract Claim
(Claim 7)
Claim
Plaintiff
Arrey
Vanessa
¶ 301
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Auburn
Ursula
¶¶ 254–57
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order
Ayala
Christal
¶ 302
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Back
Celina
¶ 303
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Baker
Cindy
¶¶ 250–53
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order
Barnettte
Mark
¶ 304
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Beckham
Douglas
¶ 305
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Beehler
Sky
¶ 306
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Bennett
Amber
¶ 307
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Berlt
Forrest
¶ 308
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order
Blacksands
Stone
¶ 309
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Blankenship
Claire
¶¶ 279–84
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
In the alternative, they
cannot allege that they
have not been
reimbursed.
2
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1813 Page
17 of 36
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1)
Reason for Dismissal of
Section 9 and 11
Contract Claim
(Claim 7)
Claim
Plaintiff
Bommel
Dean
¶ 310
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Brady
Nicholas
¶ 311
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Brooks
James
¶ 312
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Brotman
Adam
¶ 313
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order
Bruno
James
¶ 314
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order
Burns
Beth
¶ 315
N/A
N/A
Burrow
Dwight
¶ 316
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Bynum
Mario
¶ 317
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Byrn
Daniel
¶ 318
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Cajas
Clara
¶¶ 195–99
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order
Calzado
Joseph
¶ 319
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Camberos
Stacey
¶ 320
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Cardenas Cortez
Victor
¶ 333
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Carpenter
Kimberly
¶ 321
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order
Castillo
Patricia
¶ 322
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order
3
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1814 Page
18 of 36
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1)
Reason for Dismissal of
Section 9 and 11
Contract Claim
(Claim 7)
Claim
Plaintiff
Caton
Richard
¶ 323
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Chapple
Susan
¶ 324
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Chase
Randy
¶ 325
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Chavez
Angela
¶ 326
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Chavez
Phillip
¶ 327
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Chong
Kuang Ting
¶¶ 261–67
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order
Cochran
Tiffany
¶ 328
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Collins
LaMar
¶ 329
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Contreras
Jennifer
¶ 330
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Contreras
Jose
¶ 331
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Corella
Donmonique
¶ 332
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Cortez-Gonzalez
Crystal
¶ 334
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
D’Agostino Criado
Teresa
¶ 335
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
4
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1815 Page
19 of 36
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1)
Reason for Dismissal of
Section 9 and 11
Contract Claim
(Claim 7)
Claim
Plaintiff
Dale
Heather
¶ 336
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
De Hoyos
Marcus
¶ 400
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
De Los Angeles, Sr.
Samuel
¶ 298
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
de Vera
Michell
¶ 337
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Deasy
Timothy
¶ 338
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Delariva
Luis
¶ 339
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Delgado
Delbert
¶ 340
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Delgado
Selena
¶ 341
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Dirickson
Nickolaus
¶ 342
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Dones
Lorina
¶ 343
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Douglas
Anthony
¶ 344
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Douglass
Benjamin
¶ 345
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Duey
Kayli
¶ 346
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
5
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1816 Page
20 of 36
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1)
Reason for Dismissal of
Section 9 and 11
Contract Claim
(Claim 7)
Claim
Plaintiff
Eason
Roxanne
¶ 347
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Echeverria
Peter
¶ 348
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Edwards
Linda
¶ 349
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Escalante
Maritza
¶ 350
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Espalin
Marley
¶ 351
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Estrada
Juan
¶ 352
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Farina
Dawn
¶ 353
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Ferraro
Cody
¶ 354
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Flores
Jacob
¶ 355
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Flores
Arnold
¶ 356
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Flores
Stephanie
¶ 357
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Franks
Anthony
¶ 358
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Friday
Meredith
¶ 359
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
6
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1817 Page
21 of 36
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1)
Reason for Dismissal of
Section 9 and 11
Contract Claim
(Claim 7)
Claim
Plaintiff
Friend
Joseph
¶ 360
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Gage
Latisha
¶ 362
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Galicia
Abigail
¶ 361
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Garcia
Monica
¶ 363
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Gaynor
Glynda
¶ 364
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
George
Laquitta
¶ 365
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Giddens
Elizabeth
¶ 366
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Glassflowers
Seante
¶ 367
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Gonzalez
Angela
¶ 368
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Gonzalez
Barton
¶ 369
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Gonzalez
Lizet
¶ 370
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Graham
Lainie Ann
¶ 371
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Grant
Audrey
¶ 372
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
7
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1818 Page
22 of 36
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1)
Reason for Dismissal of
Section 9 and 11
Contract Claim
(Claim 7)
Claim
Plaintiff
Gray
Willie
¶ 373
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Grimes
Sean
¶ 374
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Guadalajara
Jeffrey
¶ 375
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Guirguis
Noah
¶ 376
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Gutcher
Lyndsey
¶ 377
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Gutierrez
Andres
¶ 378
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Gutierrez
Angelica
¶ 379
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Gutierrez
Crystal
¶ 380
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Hakopian
Shant
¶ 381
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Hanes
James
¶ 382
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Haney
Micah
¶ 383
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Hanna
Preston
¶ 384
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Harden
Rebecca
¶ 385
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
8
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1819 Page
23 of 36
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1)
Reason for Dismissal of
Section 9 and 11
Contract Claim
(Claim 7)
Claim
Plaintiff
Harper
Johnny
¶ 386
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Harris
Ivan
¶ 387
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Harris
Markee
¶ 388
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Hart
Steven
¶ 389
N/A
Hassanshahi
Bahram
¶ 390
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Hayden
Kaytricia
¶ 391
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Heinz
Gretchen
¶ 392
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Hernandez
Ronnie
¶ 393
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Hernandez
Ruben
¶ 394
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Hernandez
Vanessa
¶ 395
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Hicks
Julie
¶¶ 258–60
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
In the alternative, they
cannot allege that they
have not been
reimbursed.
Hollingsworth
Anthony
¶ 396
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
9
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1820 Page
24 of 36
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1)
Reason for Dismissal of
Section 9 and 11
Contract Claim
(Claim 7)
Claim
Plaintiff
Holloway
Lindsie
¶ 397
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Horath
Crystal
¶ 398
N/A
N/A
Howze
Terrance
¶ 399
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Hutchins
Sharonna
¶ 401
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Huynh
Quoc
¶ 402
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Idemudia
John
¶ 403
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Isles
Juanita
¶ 404
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Jabara
Derrick
¶ 405
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Jackson
Shreel
¶ 406
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Jaurigue, Jr.
Robert
¶ 407
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Jeff
Anthony
¶ 408
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Johnson
Evett
¶ 409
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Johnson
Lester
¶ 410
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Johnson
Terrell
¶ 411
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
10
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1821 Page
25 of 36
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1)
Reason for Dismissal of
Section 9 and 11
Contract Claim
(Claim 7)
Claim
Plaintiff
Jones
Brian
¶ 412
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Jones
Victoria
¶ 413
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Karam
Alan
¶¶ 203–15
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Kelly
Olivia
¶ 414
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Kessler
Erick
¶ 415
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Knight
Deandre
¶ 416
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Koole
Candace
¶¶ 136–43
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Lawson
Corey
¶ 417
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Laxton
Sabrina
¶ 418
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Lind
Tonya
¶ 419
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Littles
Limmie
¶ 420
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Lopez
Ronda
¶ 421
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Loredo
Ernie
¶ 422
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
11
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1822 Page
26 of 36
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1)
Reason for Dismissal of
Section 9 and 11
Contract Claim
(Claim 7)
Claim
Plaintiff
Madrid
Raina
¶ 423
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Madrid
Mario
¶ 424
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Magallan
Joseph
¶ 425
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Main
Joseph
¶ 426
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Martinez
Danela
¶ 427
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Mathews
Rosemary
¶¶ 160–70
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Matson, Jr.
Russell
¶ 428
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Matthews
Vernon
¶ 429
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Maurer
Janelle
¶ 430
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
McCafferty
Christina
¶ 431
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
McCann
Brenda
¶ 432
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
McClure
Lindsay
¶¶ 187–91
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
McCrary
Michael
¶ 434
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
12
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1823 Page
27 of 36
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1)
Reason for Dismissal of
Section 9 and 11
Contract Claim
(Claim 7)
Claim
Plaintiff
Meza
Jennifer
¶ 433
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Middleton
Travis
¶ 435
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Miller
Linda
¶ 436
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Moon
Azuri
¶¶ 144–51
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Moore
Stephanie
¶¶ 268–73
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Moore
Lavell
¶ 437
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Morales
Sara
¶ 438
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Morales
Albert
¶ 439
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Morgan
Sharise
¶ 440
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Morrell
Tiffiany
¶ 441
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Morris
Heather
¶ 442
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Mouck
Janette
¶ 443
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Murphy
Robert
¶ 444
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
13
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1824 Page
28 of 36
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1)
Reason for Dismissal of
Section 9 and 11
Contract Claim
(Claim 7)
Claim
Plaintiff
Murphy
Sarah
¶ 445
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Nicholson
Kimberly
¶ 446
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Ojeda
Lelanya
¶ 447
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Oosthuizen
Roland
¶¶ 152–59
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Ortiz, Jr.
Frank
¶ 448
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Owen
Kelly
¶ 449
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Owensby
Mark
¶ 450
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Paningbatan
Flouzel
¶ 451
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Payton
Laura
¶ 452
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Pena, Jr.
Ismael
¶ 453
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Perez
Luis
¶¶ 216–24
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Perez
Ann
¶ 454
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Perez
Paul
¶ 455
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
14
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1825 Page
29 of 36
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1)
Reason for Dismissal of
Section 9 and 11
Contract Claim
(Claim 7)
Claim
Plaintiff
Perkins
Kenyon
¶ 456
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Petrova
Zinaida
¶¶ 274–78
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Piette
Melanie
¶ 457
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Pita
Ryan
¶ 458
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Pitts
Darnell
¶ 459
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Pitts
Vannessa
¶ 460
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Pointer
Misty
¶ 461
Dismissed with prejudice
by MTD Order.
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Pomeroy
Tina
¶ 462
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Posten
Randle
¶ 463
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Pummill
Joshua
¶ 464
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Quesada
Andrea
¶ 465
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Quiroz
Maurilio
¶ 466
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Raiff
Mykela
¶ 467
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
15
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1826 Page
30 of 36
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1)
Reason for Dismissal of
Section 9 and 11
Contract Claim
(Claim 7)
Claim
Plaintiff
Ray
Moaney
¶ 468
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Reed
Kawana
¶ 469
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Rima-Fleurima
Nehemiah
¶ 470
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Ritchey
Rhonda
¶ 471
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Rivera
Vanessa
¶¶ 127–35
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Rivera
Israel
¶ 472
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Roa
Miguel
¶ 473
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Robinson
Carmen
¶ 474
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Robinson
Stanley
¶ 475
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Robles
Joe
¶ 476
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Rodriguez
Carlos
¶¶ 171–76
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Rodriguez
Catrina
¶ 477
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Rodriguez Romo
Jose
¶ 479
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
16
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1827 Page
31 of 36
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1)
Reason for Dismissal of
Section 9 and 11
Contract Claim
(Claim 7)
Claim
Plaintiff
Rojas de Charolet
Elana Martina
¶ 478
N/A
Royston
Melissa
¶ 480
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Salaz
Raylene
¶ 481
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Salazar
Miguel
¶ 482
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Saldate
Frankie
¶ 483
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Schmidt
Michael
¶ 484
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Schmitz
Timothy
¶ 485
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Serrato
Melissa
¶ 486
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Sevilla
Arminda
¶ 487
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Silva
Jenna
¶ 488
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Simpson
Jessica
¶ 489
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Sims II
Michael
¶ 490
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Smith
Stephanie
¶¶ 200–02
N/A
N/A
Smith
Jonathan
¶¶ 229–36
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
17
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1828 Page
32 of 36
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1)
Reason for Dismissal of
Section 9 and 11
Contract Claim
(Claim 7)
Claim
Plaintiff
Smith
Denise
¶ 491
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Smith
Nicole
¶ 492
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Sparks
Jonathan
¶ 493
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Stanfill
Amy
¶ 494
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Stephens
Lucas
¶ 495
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Stidham
Crystal
¶ 496
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Talia
Danny
¶ 497
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Tamayo
Cesar
¶ 498
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Taylor
Michelle
¶ 499
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Taylor
Tonya
¶ 500
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Tonna
Nicholas
¶ 501
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Trammel
Tasha
¶ 502
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Tressler
Jimmy
¶ 503
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
18
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1829 Page
33 of 36
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1)
Reason for Dismissal of
Section 9 and 11
Contract Claim
(Claim 7)
Claim
Plaintiff
Turnbull
Jason
¶ 504
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Turner
Thomas
¶ 505
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Valadez
Reina
¶ 506
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Valenzuela
Juan
¶ 507
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Vasquez
David
¶ 508
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Verdun
Jessie
¶ 509
N/A
Villagomez
Manuel
¶ 510
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Viramontes
Luis
¶ 511
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Walker
Norman
¶ 512
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Wallace
Jason
¶ 513
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Wiggins
Brian
¶¶ 225–28
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Wilburn
Cameren
¶ 514
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Wilds
Denise
¶ 515
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Wilkins
Terrence
¶ 516
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
19
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1830 Page
34 of 36
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1)
Reason for Dismissal of
Section 9 and 11
Contract Claim
(Claim 7)
Claim
Plaintiff
Williams
Zacharia
¶ 517
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Williams
Tyrisha
¶ 518
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Williams
Willie
¶ 519
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Williamson
Latasha
¶ 520
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Willis
Leanna
¶ 521
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Willrich
J. Michael
¶¶ 177–86
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Wilson
Robert L.
¶¶ 192–94
N/A
Dismissed with
prejudice by MTD Order.
Wise
Lacey
¶ 522
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Wood
Colton
¶ 523
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Yeats
Matthew
¶ 524
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Yick
Jennifer
¶¶ 114–26
N/A
Alleged they have been
reimbursed.
Young
Glen
¶ 525
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Yuan
Alex
¶¶ 237–45
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
20
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1831 Page
35 of 36
Last Name
First Name
FAMCC
Paragraphs
Reason for Dismissal of
EFTA Claim
(Claim 1)
Reason for Dismissal of
Section 9 and 11
Contract Claim
(Claim 7)
Claim
Plaintiff
Zettlemoyer
Christopher
¶ 526
Failed to allege an Error
under EFTA.
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
Zoelle
Jory
¶¶ 246–49
N/A
Failed to exercise leave
and amend their
contract claim.
In the alternative, they
alleged they have been
reimbursed.
21
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 146-1 Filed 07/11/23 PageID.1832 Page
36 of 36