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

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

Summary

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation orders the 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.

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 data-breach actions pending in three federal districts, along with related actions identified by the parties, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Precedential value
Unknown
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 actionscommercial litigationnegligencebreach of contract

Practice areas

multidistrict litigationcivil proceduredata security litigationclass actionscommercial litigation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the 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, rather than multidistrict centralization, would be the more efficient method of managing the related actions.

Holdings

  1. Centralization was warranted because the actions involved common questions of fact arising from the same cybersecurity incident and asserted virtually identical claims.
  2. Informal coordination was not the most efficient means of resolving the litigation, and the existence or possibility of consolidation of some actions in the Eastern District of California did not overcome the need for centralization.
  3. The Southern District of California was an appropriate transferee district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

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 a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to PowerSchool's Student Information System, which schools use to store personal information of students, former students, and staff. Plaintiffs include students, students' guardians, and school staff seeking overlapping nationwide and statewide class actions. The cases assert virtually identical claims for negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, and will involve common discovery concerning the breach, PowerSchool's data-security practices, and notification of affected individuals.

Procedural history

The Panel considered the papers filed and held a hearing session concerning centralization and selection of a transferee district. 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…