Summary
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered centralization of 32 actions involving the PowerSchool customer data security breach, along with related actions, in the Southern District of California. The Panel found common factual questions concerning the breach, data-security practices, notification, and overlapping claims for negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The actions were assigned to Judge Roger T. Benitez for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the related actions involved common questions of fact warranting multidistrict centralization under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
- Whether centralization in the Southern District of California would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
- Whether informal coordination or consolidation in another district was a more efficient alternative to centralization.
Holdings
- The actions involved common questions of fact, and centralization was warranted because it would promote the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
- The Southern District of California was an appropriate transferee district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
- The Panel was not persuaded that informal coordination was the most efficient means of resolving the litigation.
Key quotations
“On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that the actions listed on Schedule A involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Southern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.”
“Centralization will avoid the possibility of inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class certification.”
Factual background
The actions arose from a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to PowerSchool's Student Information System, which schools use to store personal information of current and former students and staff. Plaintiffs, including students, guardians, and school staff, sought certification of overlapping nationwide and statewide classes. The actions asserted virtually identical negligence, breach-of-contract, and unjust-enrichment claims concerning the breach, PowerSchool's data-security practices, and its notification of affected individuals.
Procedural history
The Panel considered 32 pending actions in three federal districts and 23 related potential tag-along actions in eight additional districts. After reviewing the papers and conducting a hearing session, the Panel granted centralization and transferred the Schedule A actions to the Southern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings before Judge Roger T. Benitez.
Remand instructions
The actions listed on Schedule A were transferred to the Southern District of California and, with that court's consent, assigned to Judge Roger T. Benitez for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.