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

In re PowerSchool Customer 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 concerning the PowerSchool customer data security breach, along with related actions, in the Southern District of California. The Panel finds common factual questions and assigns the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings to Judge Roger T. Benitez.

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, with 23 additional potential tag-along actions identified by the parties.
Precedential value
unknown
Parties
Plaintiffs in the Western District of Missouri J.J. action listed on Schedule A v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., PowerSchool Group LLC, Responding plaintiffs and defendants in the listed actions
Disposition
other

Topics

civil procedureclass actionscommercial litigationnegligencebreach of contract

Practice areas

multidistrict litigationcivil proceduredata security litigationclass actionscommercial litigation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the actions involve 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. Centralization was warranted because the actions involved common questions of fact arising from the same cybersecurity incident, and centralized pretrial proceedings would serve convenience and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
  2. Informal coordination was not the most efficient method for resolving the litigation.
  3. The Southern District of California was an appropriate transferee district for the litigation.

Key quotations

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. (at 1)
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. (at 3)

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, guardians, and school staff seeking nationwide and statewide class certifications. The cases involve substantially identical claims for negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, and discovery will concern the breach, PowerSchool's data-security practices, and notification of affected individuals.

Procedural history

The Panel considered the parties' written submissions and a hearing session concerning centralization of litigation arising from the PowerSchool cybersecurity incident. The Panel rejected informal coordination as the most efficient approach and transferred the Schedule A actions to the Southern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

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.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…