Mancias et al v. Target Corporation

Filing 13

CONDITIONAL 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 Jeffery N. Luthin, Clerk of the Panel on 4/15/14. (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2014)

Cas* l"{*L Na. 2S3? #*nrlmsnt 2S$ Filed 04ll-4"114 N:age 3 *f

5

UNITED STATES JUDTCIAL PA}{EL
on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATIOI{

IN RE: TARGET CORPORATION CUSTOMER
DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATIG|'I

MDL No. 2522

{sEE ATTACHHD SCHEDULE)

coNDtTroNAL I'ltANSFElt

ORDrcR (CTO

-I)

April 2,2014, the Panel transt-erred 27 civil action(s) to the United States District Court fbr the
Disftfct of Minnesota for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
$1407.,!ee-_F'.Supp.2d (J.P.M.L.2014). Since that time, no additional action{s) have been
iransferred tithe District of Minnesota. With the consent of that court, all such actions have been
Orr

assigned to the Honorable Paul A Magnuson.

It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order-itrvolve questions of fact that are
common to the actions previously transf'erred to the District of Minnesota and assigrtecl to "ludge
Magnuson.

7.i of the ltules of Procedrne of the United States .ludicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. _$ 1407 to the
Disilict of Minnesota ibr the r€asons stated in the order of April 2,20T4, ilnd, with the consent of
that court, assigned to the Honorable llaul A Magnuson.
Pursuant to Rule

'l'his order does not become et'fective until it is filed in the Otfice of the Clerk of the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be
stayed 7 tlays from the entry thereof. lf any party files a notice of'opposition^with the Clerk of the
Panel rvithin this 7-clay periclcl, the stay will be continued until flrther order of the Panel.

FOR THE PANEL:

A itui,t i

cil:"

i;l ti'

5*-,*l'ioet{s)
,, .l
.

+ls

'

-rr,-''t'i.- _--t
'.t :: ,"..l-fi.jft

':,1

",,no&.

Jell'ery N. Liithi
{llerk nf the Panel

ilase MDL No. 252? ilocument 2*S Fit*d Q4lL&t14 Pane 3 ot S

I

N

ltf

:'I'ARGE'I'

I}A'I]A

C OR POITAT ION C U S"llO M Ell,
SEC URIT'Y BI{.EACH LI'I'IGATTON

SCHEDULE CTO*I

- TAG-ALONG

MDL No. 2522

ACTIONS

CASE CAPTION

ALABAMA MiDDLE

ALM
ALM

2

r3-00939

2

l3-"00952

o7l

f

PR
Dickson, et al. v. Target Corporation I cvi
Alabama State Employees Credit Union v. Target
Corporatioir
c-v \o+5 pA

lf

tt/srt4

Uf: n

ALABAMA NOK|HERN

AtN

14-00092

iSc,

McFerrin v. Target Corporation

t

alc PAtW/::K

ARKANSAS WES |ERN
ARW

14-04012

Commercial Bancshares, Inc. r'. Target Corporation

iVcv

t0?7 PAt{,/'JT\(

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL
CAC
CAC
CAC
CAC
CAC
CAC

13-"09461
I

3-095 l9

l4-00003
14-04294
14-01450

l4-00037

Kennelyn Sue Saiz v. Target Corpcration et al ] * qv i0? 5 pA\.iS
Regina Merino v. Target Corporation i*cul o?1 p6t'1r/:s tq
Jacqueline Curllen v. Target Clorporation et al ltcl lO 66 pA tt/SS
Thonias Dorobiala et al v. Target Corporation i fcu I o51 pAtt/s:ra
Jason Kirschenstein v. Target Corporatior
pAF,1J,,i i J
y i0
k,
Ayman Mousa v. Target Corporation llf t
83 gA1r,1,/3-3-11

lI;

ga

"10

I]AI-IFORNIA EASTN,RN
l4-001 s6

CAH

Lambert v. T'arget Corporation

f

*cui 061 flAml:;te*

CAI,IFORNIA NORTI{ARN
CAN
CAN
CAN
CAN
CAN

a

3

14-00053
t4^00129
L4-04212

J

l4-00218

a

ft*}a577

J
J

J

CALIF'OITNIA SOUTHERN

Layton et al v. Target Corporation it|''r'lo I 3 PRt"nlf -x \C
Alvarez v. Target Corporation if".u i o 61 PArt
Mancias et al v. Target Corporation I?cr,lAl O PnM
/SS\C
Mongold v. Target Corporation If c" | 0 1 flAm
f<
Smith el al r.. Target Corporation
pn lf
f *cu | 6q
a
f Z_

/:T\L

|

/;:
l"ji

Zfi*

ea*e MDL N*. 25?2 *nc*ryrent

.

cAS
CAS
L 1\5

3
3
3

14-00009
1.1-0012l
14-00563

Vile.d *4lL$f

14 Fag* 3 r:{ 5

f-

Gaizo v. lfarget Corporation ltc, t 0 i '3 PAvi lT-:
Mcl.-arry et al v. Target Corporation et
i,f cv t 61+ PA11
''lt>h1 p6r^
Garclner v. Target Corporation

al

i*C,

1-r-

1a

l:*J ,,
rC

GHOITGIA NORTHERN

t

14*00222

Hawkins v. Target corporation

itl"t' i0qB ?An i331q-

ILLINOIS NOITTHBITN

rr,N

r

13-09336

f)ne Fratelli. Inc. v. Target corporation i tt

u

p7 a' P Ar^tl:: U-

ILLINOIS SOUI HEI{N

lts

3

14-000?2

Rippy

r,-.

Target Bratrds, Inc"

14.v llfrCl

Plrrl::tC-

KENTUCKY \4IESTERN

Kyw

3

14-00035

}vfeetey v. Target Corporarion

ltcul

t a I f ln

f

s: tq

LOUISIANA EASTERN

I-AH
LAH,
LAE

t';-'+

2
2
2

'l'arget

Comoration of
Barrk
14-00sT0 Nii National .T,lj*t USA r,.
l'di'p4,1 i';:\f"'""
.#il"'i
14-00662 McAdam v. Target Corporation i f cv | /0 3 PArrr f : 31(-.
14*00663 Fraser v. Target Corpr:ration fcfcv lt 0+ pAtf l:Sy_

LOUISIANA MIDDLE

r,AM

3

14-00051

Christina v. Target Corporation of Minnesota et al

l*rv lf 05

MASSACHUSE"|'I*S

l3-13296

PAm

l3:tl

Casey et al r'. TargeJ Corporation

lLlCvl\O6

PAr',\

lif

1(,-

NEW HAMPSHIRE

NI{

1

13--005ss

Raleigh v. Target Ccqroration

rtcv

ll03

Pnrrlsr

rc_

NEW JERSEY

NJz

r

3-07866

lhc v

NHW MHXICT)

u-44292
NEW YORK EASTERN

NYE

1

SANTOS et al v. TAIIGETCORPORATION et al

14-0033t{

NEW YOITK SOUTHERN

1

1

61

PApr

lJr

l(*

Animas Credit Union v. Target Corporation
tle,u i t]
p 6,4
11
I

/::

o

Pietanza et al v. Target Corporation et al

Itcu lll

\

fAlt

/5:tl/-

tas* ld*L

NYS
,

fr}*. ?5??. ilocument

I

l3-09119

2**

Yilerj {}4f LA'|L& F;egc 4 nf

S

Bar:tlow v-'l*arget Corpor;rtion
Pnr' 1-ss
t *cv l\ t

t1

2

NORTI{ C]AROI,INA MIDDI,N

NCM

14*00042

I

NOITTH CAI{O LINA WESTEI{N

NCW 3

14-00022

)l\{-

Knox v. Target Co4roralion

l+r,Jlll+ YAI'1[fSt(-

NOI{T'H DAKOTA

3

BRYANT v. TARGET CORPORATION Kct D
ltcuitt3 fl Artl

14-0001 I

Farol et al v. Target Corporation

13-02850

Mannion v. Target Corporation
rriG PArr :sv_
i11+ u
f

ifrui t\5 PAn\55\z-

OHIO NOKI'HEI{N

oIrN

1

OKTAHOMA NORTHERN

oKN

4

14-"00083

Noe v. Talset Corporation
i tcu t t
PAnl'1r tL

(7

PENNSYI'VANIA EA STERN

PAE

2

14-00209

tVt,'r\tl8 PA*'lIJ\(

PENNSYI,VANIA M]I]NLE

PAM

1

ELLISON v. I]ARGET CORPOI{A"|ION et al

14-00544

Bankers Trust Company v. Target Corporatiern
PAn (f :r \{.*
jqr.ir \r

\t

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN
PAW

2

14-00146

PAW

2

1

4-001 75

l?c.ull4l PAul:::4

SOUTI.I CAROI,INA

sc

4

FIRST CIFTOICE FF.DERAI. CREDIT UNION v.
TARGET CIORPORATION I t i-r' \ l? O f'Rt"f l:: t<NOR'TH DISTRTCTS COMMUNIT'Y CTTbDIT
UNION v.'IAIIG E'r COitPORA:f tON

ru-40262

Bess v" Target Corporation
i

t ." it??

TENNESSEH WESTERN

TNW

2
3

14-00549

Employees C-redit Union et al v. Target Corporation

iLfevllzj Pqmf::t1

i?c,.,i \

?

r: t(

Crawlbrd v. Target Corporation

U'fAH
UT

f

14-02471

TEXAS NORTHEI{N

TXN

Pnh

l3-01

136

J.+ PRr'r lf

:t-

Christensen et ai v. Target opposed 4/9t14

f;as* MDL Nr. 2522 fi*cument 2il9 Yil*rj *413,4114 Faq* 5 of S
WASHING]'ON WES'I'HITN

WA\,V
\\,AW

2
2

4-00079
L4-40282

I

fA$lf-ilL

c"tl']r3
Sutton v. Target Corporation
Sournd Ctlnnrunity Bilnk r,. Targef Corporatiorr

lf

lf, ,;i t),6 Pt^t4ll:lC-

WISCONSIN WEST,EI{N

wlw

3

14-00105

Schat'er, Kas et al v. Target Corporation et

al

ltft vlla?

PA*|S\L