Motion - Motion. See Hammett v. Sherman, 2020 WL 1908775, at (2025-05-09)

Summary

Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order, Document 483 filed May 9, 2025 in In re: Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 21-MD-02992-GPC-MSB, in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, before Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel. Defendant Bank of America, N.A. argues that Plaintiffs' motion (ECF 479) does not comply with Local Rule 83.3(g) because it was filed ex parte without a supporting affidavit or declaration. It also argues that the evidence cited is not new, that Plaintiffs have shown no valid reason for a surreply, and that the proposed surreply ignores testimony of Faiz Ahmad. It asks the Court to deny the motion and is signed s/ Matthew L. Riffee.

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

Full text

OPP. TO PLAINTIFFS MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY
CASE NO. 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
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 (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
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
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
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-GPC-MSB
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SURREPLY TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE
ORDER.

Ctrm:
 2D – 2nd Floor
Judge:
 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel

Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 483     Filed 05/09/25     PageID.28884     Page
1 of 6

1

OPP. TO PLAINTIFFS MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY
CASE NO. 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
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
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File a Surreply (ECF 479, “Motion”
or “Mot.”) is both procedurally deficient and substantively without merit.  Plaintiffs’
Motion does not comply with the Local Rule requirements for ex parte motions.
Moreover, the evidence that Plaintiffs believe merits a surreply was presented in
response to an argument raised in Plaintiffs’ opposition and is not “new”—it was
marked as an exhibit by Plaintiffs at a deposition this winter.  Thus, Plaintiffs’ Motion
should be denied.
In any event, Plaintiffs’ proposed surreply is for naught because it continues
to completely ignore that Faiz Ahmad—the person to whom Mr. Moynihan
supposedly gave the “
” for the fraud filter—specifically and
unambiguously testified that

  ECF 453
(“Motion for Protective Order”) at 7, 16; ECF 472 (“Reply”) at 1–3.
I.
Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion Does Not Comply with Local Rule 83.3(g).
As a preliminary matter, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Surreply (ECF
479) is not properly before the Court.  Contrary to Local Rule 83.3(g)’s requirements,
Plaintiffs filed their motion on an ex parte basis without the requisite supporting
affidavit or declaration.  See ECF 479.  Plaintiffs, of course, could not comply with
the Local Rule because they made no attempt to notify BANA or its counsel of their
intent to file the motion, and have no reason for seeking ex parte relief that was not
permitted in the first place under the parties’ agreed briefing schedule (ECF 447).
See Local Rule 83.3(g).  Plaintiffs’ procedural defaults alone warrant denial of the
relief sought in their Motion.  See Hammett v. Sherman, 2020 WL 1908775, at *1
(S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2020) (denying ex parte motion where movant failed to attempt
to provide notice as required by Local Rule 83.3(g)).
II.
There Is No Basis for Plaintiffs to File a Surreply.
Plaintiffs’ Motion should also be denied because Plaintiffs have not shown any
valid reason warranting a surreply.  Courts “generally view motions for leave to file
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 483     Filed 05/09/25     PageID.28885     Page
2 of 6

2

OPP. TO PLAINTIFFS MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY
CASE NO. 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
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
a sur-reply with disfavor,” and deny such requests absent a “valid reason for such
additional briefing.”  Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Pac. Surf Designs, Inc., 2018 WL
3198800, *1 (S.D. Cal. June 25, 2018).  Courts particularly deny requests for
surreplies where, as here, a “reply and exhibits are not misleading, nor [] present new
arguments, but rather provide a counter response” to the opposition brief.  Whitewater
W. Indus., 2018 WL 3198800, *1; see also Valdez v. Zhang, 2023 WL 11992434, at
*1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2023).
Relevant here, Plaintiffs’ opposition brief articulated a speculative,
unsupported theory that Mr. Moynihan provided necessary approvals of the fraud
filter to Faiz Ahmad after a meeting on September 27, 2020.  ECF 465 (“Opposition”)
at 12–15.  BANA’s Reply responded to and refuted Plaintiffs’ theories, and offered
testimony and evidence in support.  See ECF 472 (“Reply”) at 1–4; see also Mot. at
1 (conceding that BANA presented Ms. Bessant’s role and email to respond to
arguments and “inferences” raised in their opposition).  Plaintiffs’ Motion points to
one piece of evidence, an email indicating

 (Hoyle Decl. Ex. 18), and argues that this “new evidence” merits a
surreply.  Mot. at 1.  But Ms. Bessant’s email and
 are
not “new evidence” presented at the “eleventh hour.”  Indeed, Plaintiffs

  See
Hoyle Decl. Ex. 20, Ahmad Tr. at 193:8–196:8 (testifying regarding Hoyle Decl. Ex.
18).1  Thus, Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied because the evidence cited in
BANA’s Reply “merely respond[s] to the arguments raised by [Plaintiffs] in their
opposition, which is in keeping with the nature and purpose of a response” and
“provides a counter response to [Plaintiffs’] allegations.”  Whitewater, 2018 WL
3198800, at *1 (denying request for a surreply).

1 Despite knowing about this email for months, Plaintiffs never once sought to
depose Ms. Bessant.  See ECF 473 (Hoyle Decl.) ¶ 13.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 483     Filed 05/09/25     PageID.28886     Page
3 of 6

3

OPP. TO PLAINTIFFS MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY
CASE NO. 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
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
*
*
*
For the reasons stated herein, BANA respectfully requests that the Court deny
Plaintiffs’ ex parte Motion and request for leave to file a surreply.
Further, and in any event, the Court can reject the arguments raised in
Plaintiffs’ surreply on their face because Plaintiffs’ continued speculation that
Mr. Moynihan approved the fraud filter has no evidentiary support.  See ECF 453
(Mot. for Protective Order) at 16–19; ECF 472 (Reply) at 1–4.  Indeed, Plaintiffs’
surreply continues to espouse the theory that the “
” to implement the fraud
filter was sought and received by Faiz Ahmad.  See Mot. at 2.  At the same time, it
continues to completely ignore Mr. Ahmad’s testimony on this issue, in which he
clearly and unambiguously testified that:

  ECF 472 (Reply) at 1–3 (quoting Riffee Decl. Ex. 5, Ahmad
244:18–22, 93:25–94:20); ECF 453 (Mot. for Protective Order) at 7, 16 (citing the
same).  Thus, Plaintiffs already know the answer to the question posited by their
surreply:  Mr. Moynihan did not approve the fraud filter.

Dated:   May 9, 2025
Respectfully submitted,

By: s/ Matthew L. Riffee

MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (pro hac vice)
MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com
THOMAS M. HEFFERON (pro hac vice)
THefferon@goodwinlaw.com
SABRINA M. ROSE-SMITH (pro hac vice)
SRoseSmith@goodwinlaw.com
MATTHEW L. RIFFEE (pro hac vice)
MRiffee@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
1900 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: +1 202 346 4000
Fax: +1 202 346 4444
JAMES W. MCGARRY (pro hac vice)
JMcGarry@goodwinlaw.com
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 483     Filed 05/09/25     PageID.28887     Page
4 of 6

4

OPP. TO PLAINTIFFS MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY
CASE NO. 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
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
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA  02210
Tel.: +1 617 570 1000
Fax: +1 617 523 1231
LAURA G. BRYS (SBN 242100)
LBrys@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
601 S Figueroa St., Suite 4100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel.: +1 213 426 2500
Fax: +1 617 346 4444
VALERIE A. HAGGANS (pro hac vice)
VHaggans@goodwinlaw.com
LINDSAY E. HOYLE (pro hac vice)
LHoyle@goodwinlaw.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Tel: +1 212 813-8800
Fax: +1 212 355-3333
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
San Diego, CA 92101
Attorneys for Defendant
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 483     Filed 05/09/25     PageID.28888     Page
5 of 6

5

OPP. TO PLAINTIFFS MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY
CASE NO. 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
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 May 2, 2025.  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:
May 9, 2025

s/ Matthew L. Riffee

Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB     Document 483     Filed 05/09/25     PageID.28889     Page
6 of 6

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.483.0.pdf

Size

238,589 bytes

SHA-256

409f84c61721ef9f87bd61d03f8b809de5bd08e12e243eca35c12905fb990768

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.483.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)