Guzman et al v. Target Corporation
Filing
7
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE To the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. IN RE: TARGET CORPORATION CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION. MDL No. 2522. Signed by John G. Heyburn II, Chairman of the Panel on 04/03/14. (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2014) [Transferred from California Northern on 4/4/2014.]
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?