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 United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation orders centralization of actions arising from the PowerSchool customer data security breach. The Panel transfers the actions listed on Schedule A 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
Per curiam; Karen K. Caldwell; Nathaniel M. Gorton; Matthew F. Kennelly; David C. Norton; Dale 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-security-breach actions pending in three federal districts, with additional related actions pending in other districts.
Standard of review
The Panel assessed whether the actions involved common questions of fact and whether centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
Precedential value
Procedural transfer order applying the Panel's multidistrict-litigation centralization standard; no precedential designation is stated.
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

civil procedureclass actionsdiscovery disputenegligencebreach of contract

Practice areas

multidistrict litigationcivil proceduredata security litigationclass actions

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the related actions should be centralized under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 because they involve common questions of fact and centralization would promote convenience and the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
  2. Whether the Southern District of California is an appropriate transferee district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Holdings

  1. Centralization was warranted because the actions share common questions of fact concerning the PowerSchool data breach, and centralization would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
  2. The Southern District of California was an appropriate transferee district for the centralized litigation.
  3. The Panel declined to rely on informal coordination because the parties had not provided comparable assurance that Section 1404 transfer motions would be uncontested, and the authorities cited by opponents involved materially different circumstances.

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.
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 schools use to store personal information of current and former students and staff. Plaintiffs include students, students' guardians, and school staff seeking nationwide and statewide class certification and asserting substantially identical claims for negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Discovery will address how and when the breach occurred, the adequacy of PowerSchool's data-security practices, and the timing and adequacy of notice to affected individuals. Thirty-two actions were pending in three districts, with 23 additional related actions identified in eight districts.

Procedural history

The Panel considered the centralization motion on the papers filed and at a hearing session. It ordered the actions listed on Schedule A transferred to the Southern District of California and assigned, 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 that court's consent, assigned to Judge Roger T. Benitez for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…