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 grants centralization of actions arising from the PowerSchool customer data security breach. 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 under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.

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 data-breach actions pending in three federal districts, along with related potential tag-along actions, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Precedential value
procedural transfer order; limited precedential value
Parties
Plaintiffs in the Western District of Missouri J.J. action listed on Schedule A v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., PowerSchool Group LLC
Disposition
other

Topics

class actionscivil procedureconsumer protection

Practice areas

multidistrict litigationcivil proceduredata security litigationclass actionsconsumer protection

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the actions involve common questions of fact within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
  2. Whether centralization of the actions in a single federal district would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
  3. Which federal district is the appropriate transferee venue for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Holdings

  1. The actions involve common questions of fact, and centralization under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
  2. The Southern District of California is 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.
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 used to store personal information of current and former students and staff. Plaintiffs include students, students' guardians, and school staff seeking overlapping nationwide and statewide class actions. The complaints assert virtually identical claims for negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, and discovery will address the breach, PowerSchool's data-security practices, and notice to affected individuals.

Procedural history

The Panel considered the parties' written submissions and held a hearing session. It determined that the actions shared common factual questions arising from the same cybersecurity incident and transferred the actions listed on Schedule A to the Southern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…