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 United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation orders centralization of 32 actions involving the PowerSchool customer data security breach, along with related actions, in the Southern District of California under MDL No. 3149. The Panel finds common factual questions concerning the breach, PowerSchool’s data security practices, and breach notifications, and assigns the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings to Judge Roger T. Benitez. Schedule A identifies the actions transferred from the Eastern District of California, Western District of Missouri, and Eastern District of New York.

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
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 actions pending in three federal districts, along with additional related actions, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Precedential value
procedural transfer order
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 actionsnegligencebreach of contractunjust enrichment

Practice areas

civil proceduremultidistrict litigationdata security litigationconsumer protectiontortscontracts

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the actions involve common questions of fact warranting centralization under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
  2. Whether centralization will 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 district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Holdings

  1. The actions involve common questions of fact, and centralization is appropriate because it 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 method of resolving the litigation where no parties had moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to transfer the actions to a common district and there was no assurance that potential § 1404 motions would be uncontested.
  3. The Southern District of California is an appropriate transferee district for the 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.
The Southern District of California is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation.

Factual background

The litigation arises 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. The plaintiffs include students, students' guardians, and school staff seeking overlapping nationwide and statewide class actions. The actions 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 motion to centralize the listed actions, the parties' responses, the papers filed, and the hearing session. The Panel granted centralization and transferred the Schedule A actions 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 were 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…