Full text
JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-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
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (SBN 36324)
jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
BRIAN DANITZ (SBN 247403)
bdanitz@cpmlegal.com
KARIN B. SWOPE (Pro Hac Vice)
kswope@cpmlegal.com
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Fax: (650) 697-0577
MICHAEL RUBIN (SBN 80618)
mrubin@altber.com
STACEY M. LEYTON (SBN 203827)
sleyton@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
Fax: (415) 362-8064
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the
Proposed Class
JAMES W. McGARRY (pro hac vice)
JMcGarry@goodwinlaw.com
MICHELLE T. BRIGGS (pro hac vice)
MBriggs@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Tel.: +1 617 570 1000
Fax: +1 617 523 1231
SABRINA M. ROSE-SMITH
(pro hac vice)
SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com
MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (pro hac vice)
MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
1900 N Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel.: +1 202 346 4000
Fax: +1 202 346 4444
Attorneys for Defendant
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN RE BANK OF AMERICA
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS LITIGATION
Case No.: 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE
STATEMENT
This Document Relates to All Actions
Date:
February 14, 2025
Time:
1:30 p.m.
Location:
Via Zoom
Judge:
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 412 Filed 02/07/25 PageID.25255 Page
1 of 14
JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
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
The parties in the above-referenced matter, by and through their respective
counsel, having met and conferred, submit this Joint Status Conference Statement to
identify the issues the parties wish to discuss at the February 14, 2025 Status
Conference (ECF 408, “Order Following Hearing on Class Certification”).
I.
Certification of Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim as to Customer Service
Class
Pursuant to the Order Following Hearing on Class Certification, the parties met
and conferred regarding whether they believe the Court may decide, based on the
existing briefing, whether to certify the breach of fiduciary duty claim on behalf of the
proposed Customer Service Class. The parties failed to reach agreement and set forth
their positions as follows.
Plaintiffs’ Position: At the hearing, Plaintiffs requested leave to amend their
complaint to clarify that the breach of fiduciary duty claim is also brought on behalf
of the Customer Service Class based on the allegation that the Bank “breached its
fiduciary duty by placing its own desire to achieve greater profits ahead of the
financial security … interests of Plaintiffs and Class Members,” ECF 304 (SAMCC)
¶634, including by deliberately understaffing its claims call center in a manner that
saved the Bank money at the expense of legitimate cardholders seeking to regain
access to their unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. See 1/17/25 Hr’g Tr. 6:3-13.
The Bank did not oppose that request, which the Court granted. On January 24, 2025,
Plaintiffs filed the Third Amended Master Consolidated Complaint (“TAMCC”) with
that clarification, and on February 7, 2025, Defendant filed a supplemental answer to
respond to the few additions in the TAMCC.
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court certify the breach of fiduciary duty
claim as to the Customer Service Class without the need for further motions or briefs
because (1) the Bank was adequately on notice that Plaintiffs sought certification of
the breach of fiduciary duty claim for the Customer Service Class, (2) the parties’
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 412 Filed 02/07/25 PageID.25256 Page
2 of 14
JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
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
arguments in the existing briefing regarding class certification of Plaintiffs’ breach of
fiduciary duty claim apply equally to all of the proposed Classes, and (3) any further
briefing on this issue would be unduly duplicative and only cause unnecessary delay.
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and opening brief in support of class certification
expressly stated that Plaintiffs were seeking certification as follows: “breach of
fiduciary duty (all classes),” i.e., including the Customer Service Class. ECF 386-1 at
3:7; ECF 386-2 at 17:16; see also ECF 386-2 at 28:4-7 (discussing the Breach of
Fiduciary Duty Claim as to the following classes: “Claim Denial, Credit Rescission,
Account Freeze, and Customer Service Classes”). As Plaintiffs explained at the class
certification hearing, their arguments for certifying their breach of fiduciary duty claim
for the Customer Service Class are the same as their arguments for certifying that same
claim for the other proposed classes. Just as with respect to the Claim Denial, Credit
Rescission, and Account Freeze Classes, the predominating common issues for the
Customer Service Class include “whether the Bank entered into a ‘special relationship’
with EDD cardholders and thereby incurred fiduciary obligations,” ECF 386-2 at 26,
and “whether the Bank breached its fiduciary duties,” including by “(2) ‘failing to take
all adequate and necessary steps to ensure legitimate benefits recipients are not denied
access to their Account funds without reasonable basis,’ and (3) placing its own self-
interest in achieving greater profits ahead of the interests of class members,” id. at 27-
28 (citations omitted), for example, by deliberately understaffing its Claims call center
in a manner that impeded cardholders whose claims were denied based on the Bank’s
CFF-1 policies from regaining access to their wrongfully withheld funds. See ECF 386-
2 at 26-27; see also id. at 17 (“Common issues include: (1) whether the Bank entered
into a ‘special relationship’ with EDD cardholders and thereby incurred fiduciary
obligations; and (2) whether the Bank breached its fiduciary duties by prioritizing its
own financial self-interest above the interests of EDD cardholders.”). In addition,
Plaintiffs’ argument for certifying the breach of fiduciary duty claim for the Customer
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 412 Filed 02/07/25 PageID.25257 Page
3 of 14
JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
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
Service Class is essentially identical to the argument that Plaintiffs presented for
certifying the breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim for
that same Customer Service Class. See id. at 34 (“The Bank’s own documents and
testimony establish a lack of good faith, as they show that the Bank’s principal
motivation in implementing these policies and practices was to protect its own financial
interests at the expense of class members’ rightful access to their public benefits.”).
Because the Bank had notice of these arguments and the parties have already
fully briefed them in nearly identical contexts, Plaintiffs submit that it would be an
unnecessary waste of time and resources for the parties to re-brief these issues.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court certify the breach of
fiduciary duty claim as to the Customer Service Class without requiring further briefing
on that issue.
Defendant’s Position:
BANA agrees with the Court that Plaintiffs have not properly placed their
request for certification of the customer service class on their breach of fiduciary duty
claims before the Court because it (1) was not in the Second Amended Master
Consolidated Complaint (“SAMCC”) and (2) was not briefed in their motion for class
certification. ECF No. 408 at 1-2. Therefore, BANA did not have notice and has not
had the opportunity to respond to whether this claim, for this class, may be certified.
To assess whether Plaintiffs may still seek to certify their customer service class
for this claim given that it was not pleaded in the SAMCC and was not briefed in
Plaintiffs’ class certification briefs, and to preserve the record and BANA’s right to
challenge class certification, BANA requests limited briefing on this single issue.
BANA proposes that Plaintiffs file a 5-page brief within 14 days (February 28, 2025
based on the upcoming Status Conference), BANA will respond with a 5-page
opposition brief within 14 days (March 14, 2025), and Plaintiffs may file a 2-page
reply brief within 7 days (March 21, 2025) if they so choose. If Plaintiffs wish to
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 412 Filed 02/07/25 PageID.25258 Page
4 of 14
JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
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
forego their opening brief on this issue and rest on the argument raised in this joint
statement, then BANA would propose that it would file its 5-page opposition brief
within 14 days (February 28, 2025 based on the upcoming Status Conference), and
Plaintiffs may file a 2-page reply brief within 7 days (March 7, 2025) if they so choose.
II.
Class Notice – Joint Statement
The Parties continue to meet and confer regarding the best form of Class Notice
should it be required. Plaintiffs believe Class Notice should be sent by e-mail (when
available) as well as by U.S. Mail for all class members, and the Bank is considering
the availability of class members’ email addresses.
BANA believes that discussions regarding potential Class Notice are premature
at this time. However, in accordance with the Court’s Order (ECF 408), the Parties
have engaged in discussions regarding the solicitation of potential administrators who
may assist in providing class notice should notice be required. The Parties have an
agreement as to how to proceed in soliciting bids for a potential class notice, and have
begun that process.
III.
Apex Depositions
Plaintiffs’ Position: On December 23, 2024, Magistrate Judge Berg held an
informal discovery conference regarding the Bank’s objections to producing for
deposition Chief Executive Officer Brian T. Moynihan and former Chief Operating
Officer Thomas Montag. Judge Berg deferred ruling on the Bank’s request for a
protective order but tentatively ordered Plaintiffs to take the Zoom depositions of six
additional mid-level executives, each limited to two hours, and for the parties then to
return to Judge Berg to discuss the impact of those depositions, if any, on Plaintiffs’
request to take the depositions of Mssrs. Moynihan and Montag. The parties met and
conferred and agreed to proceed with depositions of four mid-level executives,
limited to two hours over Zoom, all of which will be completed by February 21, 2025.
Based on the Bank’s testimony and documents produced thus far, Plaintiffs
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 412 Filed 02/07/25 PageID.25259 Page
5 of 14
JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
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
feel more strongly than ever that the depositions of Messrs. Moynihan and Montag
will be critically important to Plaintiffs’ case. The Bank maintains its objections to
producing Moynihan and Montag for deposition. Accordingly, in the interest of
efficiency, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court hear this matter without
requiring the parties first to participate in another IDC and additional briefing before
Judge Berg, and that it order the matter presented on the following briefing schedule,
with a hearing date to be determined: the Bank’s motion for a protective order to be
filed by February 28; Plaintiffs’ opposition due March 14; the Bank’s reply due
March 21.1
Defendant’s Position:
The Parties have a dispute concerning Plaintiffs’ attempt to take the
depositions of two of BANA’s most senior executives, its CEO Brian Moynihan and
its former COO Thomas Montag. BANA objected to both depositions, and the
parties met and conferred. The parties then brought the issue to Magistrate Judge
Berg, and BANA moved for a protective order via Judge Berg’s Informal Discovery
Conference process. After informal letter briefing and argument, Magistrate Judge
Berg found that Plaintiffs had not sufficiently exhausted efforts to take discovery
through less burdensome means, and tentatively ordered Plaintiffs to take two-hour
remote depositions of certain BANA witnesses before Plaintiffs could renew their
request to seek apex depositions. The parties accepted Judge Berg’s tentative ruling,
reached an agreement as to how the remaining depositions ordered by Judge Berg
would proceed, and have been proceeding in accordance with Judge Berg’s
instructions. The remaining depositions are scheduled to occur the weeks of
February 10 and 17, and will conclude on February 21, 2025. Thus, this issue is not
1 At the February 6, 2025 Zoom discovery conference, Plaintiffs notified Judge Berg
that, given the inevitable appeal of this Apex discovery issue to this Court, regardless
of which side prevailed before Judge Berg, it would be most efficient for the briefing
to proceed directly in this Court.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 412 Filed 02/07/25 PageID.25260 Page
6 of 14
JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
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
yet ripe for further consideration by Magistrate Judge Berg or this Court.
Given Magistrate Judge Berg’s knowledge of the issue and the parties’
agreement to abide by his tentative ruling, BANA’s position is that it is appropriate
for this issue to remain before and be re-raised to Magistrate Judge Berg after the
conclusion of the remaining ordered and agreed depositions if Plaintiffs still seek
these depositions at that time. However, if the Court would prefer for the parties to
bring this issue directly to the Court after the remaining depositions conclude, there
should be a formal briefing schedule that allows for at least the minimum amount of
time and pages permitted by the Local Rules. Moreover, if the Court wishes to hear
this issue, the parties have agreed that it would be raised by BANA in the form of a
motion for a protective order.
If this issue is to be brought directly before the Court on BANA’s motion,
BANA proposes that it would file its motion within twenty-eight (28) days after the
depositions conclude (on or before March 21, 2025). Twenty-eight (28) days is
necessary to afford BANA sufficient time to receive and review all necessary
transcripts from the depositions that Judge Berg ordered and determined are relevant
to this dispute, and to allow the parties the time allotted under the Stipulated
Protective Order to make any necessary confidentiality designations that will be
relevant to subsequent filings and motions to seal.2 BANA further proposes that
Plaintiffs would have 14 days to respond (or 21 days if Plaintiffs prefer), and BANA
would have 7 days for a reply (or 14 days if Plaintiffs seek 21 days for their
opposition). BANA would notice its motion for the Court’s next available hearing
date at the time the motion for a protective order is filed.
2 The Stipulated Protective Order provides that the parties will have twenty-one (21)
days to designate confidentiality to transcripts. ECF No. 82. BANA is willing to
request, review, and designate confidentiality of the transcripts on an expedited basis
so that formal briefing could begin within 28 days of the conclusion of depositions
(with BANA’s opening brief filed on or after March 21, 2025).
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 412 Filed 02/07/25 PageID.25261 Page
7 of 14
JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
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
IV.
Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Expert Designation and Expert Discovery
Deadlines– Joint Statement
Pursuant to the December 24, 2024 Order Modifying Case Schedule (ECF 401),
the parties on January 27, 2025 exchanged summary expert designations that largely
mirrored the expert reports submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion for
class certification, with both parties designating one additional expert. Plaintiffs
subsequently learned of the availability of a new expert, Prof. Chloe East of the
University of Colorado, a labor economist with specialized expertise in unemployment
insurance matters, whom Plaintiffs would also like to designate as an expert for their
case in chief. On February 3, 2025, the parties met and conferred and Plaintiffs
informed Defendant that they wished to disclose Prof. East. That same day, Plaintiff
served the Bank with a Supplemental Expert Designation for Prof. East.
The Parties further met and conferred on February 5, 2025, and the Bank
subsequently agreed not to contest Plaintiffs’ designation of Prof. East on timeliness
grounds provided Plaintiffs agreed to request a 14-day extension of existing expert and
pretrial motion deadlines to allow sufficient time to locate or identify additional experts
and prepare reports. Plaintiffs did agree. Accordingly, the parties respectfully submit
the accompanying Joint Motion to Extend Time Re: Expert Disclosures and Pretrial
Motions and request that the Court extend the expert and pretrial motion deadlines as
follows:
Event
Current Date
Proposed Date
Expert Designation
January 27, 2025
February 10, 2025
Rebuttal Expert Designation
February 3, 2025
February 17, 2025
Expert Disclosures
February 18, 2025
March 4, 2025
Rebuttal Expert Disclosures
March 14, 2025
March 28, 2025
Expert Discovery Cutoff
April 11, 2025
April 25, 2025
Pretrial Motions Cutoff
May 14, 2025
May 28, 2025
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 412 Filed 02/07/25 PageID.25262 Page
8 of 14
JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
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
V.
Defendants’ Motion to Stay
Plaintiffs’ Position: On January 28, 2025, the Bank filed a Notice of
Supplemental Authority and stated its intent to file a motion to stay proceedings—
including issuance of the Court’s order on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification—
based on the United States Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Laboratory Corp. 24-
0304 (LabCorp) (see ECF 409). Plaintiffs strongly oppose any stay of proceedings and
will file an opposition to any formal motion the Bank files.
The Supreme Court’s grant of review in LabCorp does not alter controlling
Ninth Circuit law and does not provide a basis for staying proceedings or delaying
issuance of the Court’s order on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, which has
already been fully briefed and argued and thoroughly considered by the Court. Cases
such as Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 31
F.4th 651 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) and Ruiz Torres v. Mercer Canyons Inc., 835 F.3d
1125 (9th Cir. 2016) are the law of this Circuit, and “once a federal circuit court issues
a decision, the district courts within that circuit are bound to follow it and have no
authority to await a ruling by the Supreme Court before applying the circuit court’s
decision as binding authority.” Yong v. INS, 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000).
Further, there is no reason to stay proceedings because the resolution of
LabCorp, whatever it may be, is unlikely to have any bearing on the appropriateness
of class certification in this case. In LabCorp, the plaintiffs sought to certify a class of
“[a]ll legally blind individuals who visited a LabCorp patient service center with a
LabCorp Express Self-Service kiosk in California during the applicable limitations
period and who, due to their disability, were unable to use the LabCorp Express Self-
Service kiosk.” Pet. for Cert. at 8 (quoting Pet.App.63a). As defined, the class included
individuals who did not want to use a kiosk and preferred to use alternative check-in
methods accessible to legally blind individuals, whom defendant argued did not suffer
a concrete injury. Id.; see Reply to BIO at 8. Moreover, defendant presented
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 412 Filed 02/07/25 PageID.25263 Page
9 of 14
JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
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
“[u]nrebutted record evidence show[ing] that nearly one-fourth of all LabCorp PSC
visitors prefer to check in at the front desk; and another tenth preferred to do so online.”
Pet. Cert. at 9.
The facts of this case and the evidence in this class certification record are
materially distinguishable at every turn. First, each proposed Class here is narrowly
defined expressly to exclude anyone who “(i) has been disqualified by the [S]tate [of
California] from Program eligibility” or whom the Bank has determined “(ii) has
previously engaged in fraudulent Program conduct, such as submission of fraudulent
claims or other abuses of the claims process.” ECF 386-1 at 2; see 1/17/25 Hr’g Tr.
21:18-22. Second, as the Court noted at the class certification hearing, the Bank has
not presented any evidence that there are likely to be many, if any, uninjured class
members who are subsequently discovered. See, e.g., 1/17/25 Hr’g Tr. 21:8-18 (“[A]t
this point, years after this fraud occurred and well into this litigation, we don’t have
Bank of America offering something more than what is in the record. … [W]e don’t
have any indication of … how many there are and how likely it is for … continued
efforts to identify many more.”). Third, there is no dispute that, as defined, every class
member was subject to the same challenged Bank policies and practices at issue, and
thus every class member suffered a concrete injury (independent of whether they
suffered damages) as a result of the Bank’s alleged violations of their EFTA rights to
a reasonable and timely investigation and written findings and their due process rights
to adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. See ECF 386-2 at 20-25; ECF 378 at
3-9; 1/17/25 Hr’g Tr. at 43:23-44:9.
Plaintiffs will respond fully to any arguments the Bank makes in its forthcoming
motion to stay and as a general matter does not object to the Bank’s proposal to the
standard briefing schedule for that motion (14 days for Plaintiffs’ opposition and 7
days for the Bank’s reply). However, if the Court is inclined to hold issuance of the
Court’s order on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification pending resolution of the
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 412 Filed 02/07/25 PageID.25264 Page
10 of 14
JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
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
Bank’s motion to stay, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court set an expedited
briefing and (if necessary) hearing schedule in order to minimize any further delay in
bringing resolution to the claims of Plaintiffs and the more than 109,000 UI
beneficiaries they seek to represent, which have now already been pending for more
than four years.
Defendant’s Position:
As stated in BANA’s January 28, 2025 notice to the Court (ECF No. 409),
BANA respectfully submits that the proceedings in this action, including the issuance
of the Court’s order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, should be stayed
pending the issuance of the United State Supreme Court’s opinion in Laboratory
Corp. of America Holdings v. Davis, No. 24-0304. The parties have met and
conferred, and Plaintiffs informed BANA that they oppose a stay.
BANA will, therefore, be filing its motion to stay concurrently with this filing,
and intends to notice the motion for the Court’s next available hearing date.
Notwithstanding the Local Rules, BANA proposes that Plaintiffs would have
fourteen (14) days from the date the motion is filed (not based on the hearing date)
to file their opposition brief, and that BANA will have until seven (7) days thereafter
to file its reply brief.
Presently, the governing Amended Scheduling Order (ECF No. 401) sets
expert disclosures to commence on February 18, 2025, and for dispositive motions
be filed on May 14, 2025. Given the proposed briefing schedule, even with the
parties’ agreed 14-day continuance (discussed above in Section IV), the deadlines in
the Amended Scheduling Order will begin to run while the Court is considering the
motion to stay. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated in BANA’s forthcoming
motion to stay, BANA respectfully requests a brief continuance of expert and other
pretrial deadlines while the Court is considering the motion to stay.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 412 Filed 02/07/25 PageID.25265 Page
11 of 14
JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
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
Dated: February 7, 2025
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
By: /s/ Brian Danitz
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT
BRIAN DANITZ
KARIN B. SWOPE
BLAIR V. KITTLE
VASTI S. MONTIEL
Dated: February 7, 2025
ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
By: /s/ Michael Rubin
MICHAEL RUBIN
STACEY M. LEYTON
CONNIE K. CHAN
KATHERINE G. BASS
COLIN C. JONES
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the
Proposed Class
Dated: February 7, 2025
By: /s/ Matthew L. Riffee
MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (pro hac vice)
MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com
SABRINA M. ROSE-SMITH
(pro hac vice)
SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
1900 N Street NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel.: +1 202 346 4000
Fax: +1 202 346 4444
JAMES McGARRY (pro hac vice)
JMcGarry@goodwinlaw.com
MICHELLE T. BRIGGS (pro hac vice)
MBriggs@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 412 Filed 02/07/25 PageID.25266 Page
12 of 14
JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
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
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Tel.: +1 617 570 1000
Fax: +1 617 523 1231
YVONNE W. CHAN (pro hac vice)
YChan@jonesday.com
JONES DAY
100 High Street
Boston, MA 02210
Tel.: +1 617 960 3939
Fax: +1 617 449 6999
Counsel for Defendant
Bank of America, N.A.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 412 Filed 02/07/25 PageID.25267 Page
13 of 14
JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB
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
SIGNATURE CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 2(f)(4) of this Court’s Electronic Case Filing
Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, I, Brian Danitz, hereby certify
that the content of this document is acceptable to all the signatories herein and that
I have obtained counsel’s authorization to affix their electronic signatures to this
document.
/s/ Brian Danitz
BRIAN DANITZ
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 412 Filed 02/07/25 PageID.25268 Page
14 of 14