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

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

Summary

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation orders centralization of 32 related actions concerning the PowerSchool customer data security breach, along with potential tag-along actions. The Panel transfers the actions to the Southern District of California and assigns them to Judge Roger T. Benitez for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The order identifies common factual issues involving the breach, data-security practices, notifications, and overlapping negligence, contract, and unjust-enrichment claims.

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 pending in three federal districts, along with related actions identified by the parties, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Precedential value
unknown
Disposition
other

Topics

civil procedureclass actionscommercial litigationnegligencebreach of contract

Practice areas

civil procedurecommercial litigationdata privacy and cybersecuritymultidistrict litigation

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 or transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 would be preferable to § 1407 centralization.

Holdings

  1. The actions listed on Schedule A involve common questions of fact, and centralization under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 is warranted.
  2. The Southern District of California is an appropriate transferee district for the centralized litigation.
  3. Informal coordination was not the most efficient method for resolving the litigation, and the Panel declined to deny centralization on that basis.

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. (-3)

Factual background

The litigation arises from unauthorized access to PowerSchool's Student Information System, which schools use to store personal information of current and former students and staff. The plaintiffs include students, guardians, and school staff seeking nationwide and statewide class actions. The actions assert 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 written submissions and held a hearing session concerning centralization of litigation arising from a PowerSchool cybersecurity incident. Most responding parties supported or did not oppose centralization, but the parties disagreed about the appropriate transferee district. The Panel ordered transfer of the Schedule A actions to the Southern District of California and assigned them, with that court's consent, to Judge Roger T. Benitez for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Remand instructions

The 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.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…