Wredberg v. Target Corporation

Filing 15

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. IN RE: TARGET CORPORATION CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH OF LITIGATION. MDL No. 2522. Signed by John G. Heyburn II, Chairman of the Panel on 4/3/14. (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2014)

Download PDF
CASE 0:14-md-02522-PAM Document L Filed A4lO2lL4 Page 1 of 5 A.fi;".r ilir'ii'ill.i-i;.'.;-r,'"rll ii - 5 UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IN RE: TARGET CORPORATION CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION Of t!trti o,;:l',i,li',.,'i',. !,'.:' li't li'iii rii;i;lr' r .r' r rti,:;ii ' I I : rii i +l3l 2s22 TRANSFER ORI}ER Before the Panel:- In three separate motions, plaintiffs in three actions have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings ofthis litigation in various districts, including the Middle District of Louisiana, the Eastem District of Louisiana, the Northern District of Illinois, the Central District of California, the Southern District of Florida, or the District of Minnesota. This litigation currently consists of 33 actions pending in eighteen districts as listed on Schedule A.' All parties agree that centralization is warranted, but disagree about the most appropriate transferee district. Plaintiffs in more than 50 actions and potential tag-along actions have responded to the motions, and they variously argue in support of centralization in the Middle District of Louisiana, the Eastern District of Louisiana, the Northern District of Illinois, the Central District of California, the Southern District ofFlorida, the District ofMinnesota, the Southern District oflllinois, the District of Colorado, the Southern District of California, the Northern District of California, or the EasternDistrict ofNewYork. Commondefendant Target Corp. (Target) supports centralization in the District of Minnesota. On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District of Minnesota will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct ofthis litigation. These actions share factual questions arising from a data security breach at stores owned and operated by Target between November 27,2013, and December 15, 2013. Centralnation will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. ' Judge Marjorie O. Rendell and Judge Lewis A. Kaplan did not participate in the disposition of this matter. Certain Panel members who could be members of the putative classes in this docket have renounced their participation in these classes and have participated in the decision. I An additional action was included in the motions for centralization, but has been dismissed without prejudice. The Panel has been notified of 7l related actions pending in 35 district courts. These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. SeePanelRules 1.1(h), 7.1 and7.2. CASE 0:14-md-02522-PAM Document L Filed 04lO2lL4 Page 2 ot 5 -2- We are persuaded that the most appropriate location for this litigation is the District of Minnesota. Target is headquartered in that district, where 25 actions and potential tag-along actions are pending. All actions in the district are pending before Judge Paul A. Magnuson, a jurist with extensive experience in multidistrict litigation. Moreover, the District of Minnesota is easily accessible and relatively centrally located for the parties to this litigation, which is nationwide in scope. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1407, the actions listed on Schedule A are transfened to the District ofMinnesotaand,with the consent ofthat court, assigned to the Honorable Paul A. Magnuson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in that district. PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Charles R. Breyer Ellen Segal Huvelle Sarah S. Vance CASE 0:14-md-02522-PAM Document l_ Filed O4l02lt4 page 3 of 5 IN RE: TARGET CORPORATION CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION MDL No.2522 SCHEDTJLE A Central District of California KLErN V. TARGET CORPORATTON, ET AL., C.A. No. 8: r3-0ts74 i* c"l33 PAN( / Northern District of California KIRKV' TARGET coRPoRATIoN' c'A' No' 3:13-05885 l4csq 3'.t PAtr\' WREDBERG V. TARGET CORPORATION, C.A. No. 3:13-05901 ltcv 135 PAI'\' cuzMAN, ET AL. v. TARGET coRPoRATIoN, c.A. No. 3:13-05953 i L| c,.r? PA jc \- 93? PA\ / Southern District of California BOHANNON V. TARGET CORPORATION. C.A. NO. 3:13-03I39 i YCV District of Colorado couNCIL v' TARGET coRPoRATIoN' c'A' No' I :13-03479 I tt c'u9 jg AIU i P Middle District of Florida CRUZ V. TARGET CORPORATION, C.A. NO. 8:13-O32OO iYCV?SCT PAt'\., ' KWAN V. TARGET CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. NO. 8:13-03252 I* CV'J O T PAM/ Southem District of Florida GRAYV' TARGET coRPoRATIoN' c'A' No' 0: 13-62769 1t1cul+l pAfw, z Northern District of Illinois IN RE: TARGET CORPORATION CUSTOMER SECURITY BREACH I9'C" q .+ E PA}\ ' LITIGATION, C.A. No. 1:13-09070 MCCARTER V. TARGET CORPORATION, C.A. NO. I:13-09147 I *C:l q +3 P A T't., ' NOVAK ET AL. V. TARGET CORPORATiON, C.e. No. I : 13-09165 i tf .u 1 '.t + PAf-v / MCPHERSON V. TARGET CORPoRATION, C.A. No. I:I3-09I88 i9 cu 1TI-5 PA \ / ELLIS V. TARGET CORPORATIOI{, C.A. No. I :13-09232 lLf cu 1+e, PAn , VASQUEZ, ET AL. v. TARGET CORPORATION, ET AL., c.A. No. I :13-09279 iVr."7+? r PA14, CASE 0:14-md-02522-PAM Document 1 Filed O4lA2lL4 Page 4 of 5 - A2MDL No.2522 Schedule A (Continued) Southern District of Illinois swrTZER, ET AL. V. TARGET CORPORATION, C.A. No. 3:13-01319 lYcvl +8 Pn\ ', Eastern District of Louisiana HAwKTNS PAI\' v. TARGET coRpoRATIoN, c.A. No.2: 13-06770 l+tvlt4 ' tv 15 o Middle District of Louisiana LAGARDE V. TARGET CORPORATTON OF MTNNESOTA, ET AL., C.A. No.3:13-00821 i f P n n- District of Massachusetts t ilCul5l PA\ 5t pA r\' TTRADO V. TARGET CORIORATTON, ETAL., C.A. No. l:13-r32r2 HELLER V. TARGET CORPORATION, C.A. No. 1 :13-13257 | ? Lv g DERBA V. TARGET CORPORATION, C.A. No. l:13-13267 ltlcs 153 PANt I District of Minnesota ]r HORTON V. TARGET CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:13-03583 N iA BURKSTRAND, ET AL. V. TARGET CORPORATION, C.A. NO. 0:13-03593 N IA ' ALONSO IU V. TARGET CORPORATION, C.A. No. 0:13-03601 N iA \ TARGET CORPORATION, C.A. No. O:I4,-OOOIO N I A., ASHENFARB, ET AL. V. SAVEDOW V. TARGET CORPORATION, C.A. No. 0: 14-00054 N I A ' ' Eastern District of Missouri RANSOM, ET AL. V. TARGET CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:13-O25gI Eastern District ofNew York SHANLEY, ET AL. V. TARGET CORPORATION, C.A. NO. 2: I3-0727g District of I*CV{ 5E PAK, ICI CVT 55 PA Oregon PURCELL V. TARGET CORPORATION, C.A. No. 3:13-02274 I* cV156 PA|& t K / CASE 0:14-md-02522-PAM Document l- Filed O4lO2l1,4 Page 5 of 5 -A3Mor, No. 2522 Schedule A (Continued) District of Rhode Island KNOWLES, ET AL. V. TARGET CORPORATION, C.A. No. 1 :13-00793 ItI.tvCI 5? PA District of Utah ROTHSCHILD, ET AL. V. TARGET, C.A. No. 1:13-00178 I4CV153 PAI'\ Western District of Washington SYLVESTER V. TARGET CORPORATION, C.A. NO. 2:13-02286 I ? CV 951 PAK' |'\ I

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?