Skip to content

Prosper Class Action – 2009 in Review

December 31, 2009

The wheels of justice are turning, but progress is slow.  At the end of the year, I thought it appropriate to provide readers with a re-cap of some notable events and developments in the ongoing class action litigation involving peer-to-peer lending company Prosper Marketplace (


  • Plaintiffs moved for the case to receive “Complex Designation” 
  • Plaintiff Barnwell dismissed without prejudice
  • Defendant Hazen dismissed without prejudice


  • Complex Designation approved
  •  Single assignment to Judge Kramer
  • Defendants file Demurrer to Complaint
  • Plaintiffs file 1st Amended Complaint


  • Plaintiffs file amended notice of motion for an order granting class certification


  • Defendants file answer to 1st Amended Complaint
  • Outside Director defendants file notice of Demurrer to 1st Amended Complaint
  • Plaintiffs submit multiple filing s related to memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to Demurrer


  • Defendants (outside directors) submit multiple filings (replies and objections) related to the April filings


  • Judge Kramer sustains Demurrer (filed by Outside Directors) to 1st Amended Complaint
  • Judge Kramer enters stipulation and protective order
  • Plaintiffs file 2nd Amended Complaint
  • Court and counsel confer on issues related to selecting a mediator


  • Outside Director defendants file Demurrer to 2nd Amended Complaint
  • Plaintiffs file Memo of P&A in opposition to the Demurrer
  • Prosper files a separate complaint against Greenwich Insurance Company


  • Outside Director defendants file a reply brief in support of their Demurrer
  • Judge Kramer sustains the Demurrer to 2nd Amended Complaint filed by the Outside Director defendants, without leave to amend


  • Outside Director defendants file objections to plaintiffs proposed order sustaining the Demurrer to 2nd Amended Complaint
  • Court and counsel confer on discovery and mediation issues
  • Court orders further mediation
  • Counsel for the defense advise the court of a pending copmplex designation application of a related action (Prosper vs. Greenwich)
  • The Court will grant the application and consolidate the actions
  • The Court schedules the next Case Management Conference for January 2010.

(Compiled from court documents )

2 Comments leave one →
  1. NewHorizon permalink
    January 4, 2010 11:37 am

    How many N’s is in Green(n)wich?

    While the Document Scanning Lead Sheets use “Greennwich”, the internals of a few case documents I’ve perused – including the original August 21st complaint – otherwise uses only one N.

    I think “Greenwich” is correct…?

  2. Admin permalink*
    January 4, 2010 1:14 pm

    I have seen both, but I think the correct spelling should only include one N. Thanks for pointing this out. I will correct the references in this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: