In re PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., and PowerSchool Group, LLC Customer Data Security Breach Litigation

In re PowerSchool Data Security Breach Litigation · United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · April 18, 2025 · No. MDL No. 3149

Summary

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation orders the centralization of 32 actions involving the PowerSchool customer data security breach, along with related actions, in the Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. The Panel finds common factual questions concerning the breach, PowerSchool’s data security practices, and breach notifications, and concludes that centralization will promote efficiency and avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings. The actions are assigned to Judge Roger T. Benitez for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Court
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Writing for the Court
Karen K. Caldwell; Nathaniel M. Gorton; Matthew F. Kennelly; David C. Norton; Dale A. Kimball; Madeline Cox Arleo
Jurisdiction
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Decision date
April 18, 2025
Docket number
MDL No. 3149
Procedural posture
Plaintiffs moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize 32 related actions pending in three federal districts, along with additional related actions, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Precedential value
MDL transfer order
Parties
Plaintiffs in the Western District of Missouri J.J. action v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., PowerSchool Group LLC
Disposition
other

Topics

class actionscivil procedurejoindernegligencebreach of contract

Practice areas

multidistrict litigationcivil proceduredata security litigationclass actions

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the related actions involved common questions of fact warranting centralization under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
  2. Whether centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
  3. Which federal district should serve as the transferee district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Holdings

  1. The actions involved common questions of fact, and centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
  2. The Southern District of California was an appropriate transferee district for the litigation.

Key quotations

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the Southern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Roger T. Benitez for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Factual background

The actions arise from unauthorized access to PowerSchool's Student Information System, which schools use to store personal information concerning current and former students and staff. Plaintiffs include students, students' guardians, and school staff seeking overlapping nationwide and statewide class actions. The cases assert substantially identical claims involving negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, and discovery is expected to address the breach, PowerSchool's data-security practices, and its notification of affected individuals.

Procedural history

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation considered the centralization motion after reviewing the parties' papers and holding a hearing session. The Panel determined that the actions shared common factual questions arising from the PowerSchool cybersecurity incident and ordered transfer of the Schedule A actions to the Southern District of California, with the consent of that court, 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 the Honorable Roger T. Benitez for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…