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

MDL No. 3149 (J.P.M.L. Apr. 18, 2025) · United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · April 18, 2025 · No. MDL No. 3149

Summary

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the centralization of 32 actions, along with related actions, arising from the PowerSchool customer data security breach. The Panel transferred the actions to the Southern District of California and assigned them 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; David A. Kimball; Madeline Cox Arleo
Jurisdiction
United States 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 23 related potential tag-along actions, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Precedential value
nonprecedential transfer order
Disposition
other

Topics

civil procedureclass actionsnegligencecontracts

Practice areas

multidistrict litigationcivil proceduredata securityclass actionsprivacy and data breach litigation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the related data-breach 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 listed on Schedule A should be centralized because they 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 shown to be the most efficient means of resolving the litigation, particularly because the parties had not provided assurance that potential § 1404 transfer motions would be uncontested.
  3. The Southern District of California is an appropriate transferee district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Key quotations

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, 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)
We are not persuaded that informal coordination is the most efficient route to resolving this litigation. (at 2)
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 2)

Factual background

The actions arose from unauthorized access to PowerSchool's Student Information System, which schools use to store personal information concerning current and former students and staff. Plaintiffs sought nationwide and statewide class certification and asserted largely identical claims involving negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Discovery was expected to concern how and when the breach occurred, the adequacy of PowerSchool's data-security practices, and the timing and adequacy of notice to affected individuals.

Procedural history

The Panel considered the centralization motion on the papers and at a hearing session. It 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.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…