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)

Download PDF
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 \{.* \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

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?