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

MDL No. 3149 · United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · April 18, 2025 · No. MDL No. 3149

Summary

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered centralization of actions arising from the PowerSchool customer data security breach. The Panel transferred the cases to the Southern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings and assigned them to Judge Roger T. Benitez. The order identifies common factual and legal issues involving the breach, data security, notification, negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and class certification.

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 in an action pending in the Western District of Missouri moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize 32 related actions involving the PowerSchool data-security incident for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Standard of review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, centralization is appropriate when actions share common questions of fact and transfer will promote the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Precedential value
transfer order
Disposition
other

Topics

civil procedureclass actionsnegligencecontractsunjust enrichment

Practice areas

multidistrict litigationcivil proceduredata security litigationclass actionsprivacy and data breach

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the related actions involve common questions of fact warranting centralization under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
  2. 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.
  3. Whether informal coordination was a more efficient alternative to multidistrict centralization.

Holdings

  1. The actions listed on Schedule A involve common questions of fact, and centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
  2. Informal coordination was not the most efficient means of resolving the litigation because no parties had moved under § 1404 to transfer the actions to a common district and there was no assurance that any future § 1404 motions would be uncontested.
  3. The Southern District of California is an appropriate transferee district for the centralized litigation.

Key quotations

These actions share factual questions arising from a recent cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to PowerSchool’s Student Information System software, which schools use to store current and former students’ and staff members’ personal information.
Centralization will avoid the possibility of inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly with respect to class certification.

Factual background

The actions arise from a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to PowerSchool's Student Information System, which stores personal information of current and former students and school staff. The plaintiffs seek certification of overlapping nationwide and statewide classes and assert substantially identical claims for negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Discovery is expected to address how and when the breach occurred, the adequacy of PowerSchool's data-security practices, and the timing and adequacy of breach notifications.

Procedural history

The Panel considered 32 actions pending in three federal districts and was informed of 23 additional related actions pending in eight districts. After reviewing the papers and conducting a hearing session, the Panel granted centralization and transferred the actions listed on Schedule A to the Southern District of California, with that court's consent, for assignment to Judge Roger T. Benitez.

Remand instructions

The actions listed on Schedule A are 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…