Skip to content



This blog tracks highlights of the class action lawsuit against (Hellum v. Prosper Marketplace, Inc.). It is NOT the official Notification Administrator site. That site is located at

Prosper Opposes Class Certification

June 30, 2011

In the ongoing saga of the proposed class action litigation involving Prosper Marketplace (, Prosper’s counsel has, according to the Court’s web site filed documents indicating its opposition to the amended motion for class certification.

No actual documents are yet available for downloading, but processing delays for scanning and posting are common.  The docket, however, suggests that what may end up being made available is a “public redacted version.” 

PCASM will update this post when/if the documents are made available by the Court.

The next “action date” on the Court’s calendar is set for July 15, 2011.

Disgruntled Directors Petition California Supreme Court

June 22, 2011

According to a recent regulatory filing made by Prosper Marketplace (, the outside director defendants, following the April 29, 2011 reversal by the California Court of Appeal of their previously sustained demurrer in the proposed class action litigation, are petitioning for relief from a higher power.

On June 9, 2011, the individual defendants filed a petition before the California Supreme Court seeking review of the Court of Appeal’s opinion.

Related Post:

Prosper shakes up its legal team

June 2, 2011

There has not been much activity to report since the California Court of Appeals ruled in the plaintiff’s favor on the previous dismissal of the outside director directors.

Today, however, recent activity on the court’s docket indicates Prosper Marketplace ( and its officers and directors have replaced their legal team.  Mr. Thad A. Davis of Ropes & Gray has been “substituted” for Mr. Paul Friedman of Morrison Foerster.

The next complex litigation case management meeting, previously scheduled for July 1, has been continued to July 15. 


Plaintiffs prevail on appeal

April 29, 2011

SECOND UPDATE: Director defendants petition California Supreme Court. Related post.

UPDATE: The court has posted its opinion.  You can read it here.

In the ongoing saga of the proposed class action litigation against peer-to-peer (p2p) lender Prosper Marketplace (, The California Court of Appeals, finding in favor of the lender plaintiffs, has reversed the previous order of the Superior Court to dismiss from the case those defendants known as the “outside director defendants.”

The notice, filed this evening, on the court’s web site simply states: The judgment is reversed. Plaintiffs shall recover their costs on appeal.

The posting of the court’s opinion is still pending.

The Court of Appeals Schedules Oral Arguments (with a caveat)

March 25, 2011

 UPDATE: According to the court’s web site, both parties have waived the presence of Justice Reardon. The oral argument should then be expected to proceed as planned on Tuesday, April 12, 2011.

The California Appellate Court, in the pending appeal related to the dismissal of certain defendants from the ongoing class action litigation against Prosper Marketplace (, has now scheduled oral arguments.

The session has been scheduled for Tuesday, April 12, 2011. One member of the judicial panel, however, has indicated he will not be available to participate in the proceedings.  Although the court states that Justice Reardon will still have the ability to review a recording of the session and participate in deliberations, his absence triggers a situation wherein the parties must waive the Judge’s presence at the oral argument.  If either party does not choose to waive their right to argue before a full panel, the oral argument order will be vacated and the argument will be re-scheduled for a date and time when all justices can be present.

You can find the case docket information here.

Plaintiffs file Third Amended Complaint

February 25, 2011

According to court records, the plaintiffs in the proposed class action suit against Prosper Marketplace ( filed a third amended complaint with the court this morning.

Quick Update

February 15, 2011

There has been a fair amount of activity recently on the docket of the proposed class action suit filed against Prosper Marketplace ( – and also in some of the related cases.

Late in 2010, the plaintiffs motioned for leave to file a third amended complaint.  The defendants appear to have opposed the motion, as indicated by a January 10, 2011 filing. 

On January 25, 2011, Judge Kramer granted the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. 

On February 10, 2011, the court received a notice of amended motion for an order granting class certification, appointing class representatives, and class counsel.

Coverage litigation update

December 28, 2010

Prosper-watcher Xraider has provided an update over at regarding new developments in one of the offspring cases from the proposed class action suit against Prosper Marketplace.  This is the case where Prosper’s insurance company declined to defend Prosper, which caused Prosper to file suit.

Xraider observes that the court issued a tentative decision holding that Prosper’s insurer, Greenwich, has a duty to defend the class action.

You can read the full text of the tentative decision here.

You can read Xraider’s earlier notes on this litigation here.

Update on the Appeal

December 28, 2010

On January 21, 2010, Judge Kramer, in the proposed class action suit against Prosper Marketplace, dismissed certain named defendants from the case.

On February 23, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, which was followed by the filing of Appellant’s opening brief on June 25, 2010.

On October 7, the respondents filed their brief.  The plaintiffs filed their appellants reply brief on December 27, 2010.

The case, according to the court’s web site, is now fully briefed.

December 7 Case Management Hearing

December 10, 2010

The wheels of justice continue to turn.  The parties gathered for another case management hearing in Judge Kramer’s courtroom on December 7, 2010.  The minutes of the proceedings can be found here.

A hearing regarding plaintiffs’ motion to file amended complaint is advanced from January 12, 2011 and continued to January 25, 2011.  To view the docket and related documents, please go here.

%d bloggers like this: