Dolembo v. Sonic Corp.

Filing 13

TRANSFER ORDER re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 2807), ( 2 in MDL No. 2807) Transferring 5 action(s) to Judge James S. Gwin in the N.D. Ohio.Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 12/6/2017. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2807, NV/2:17-cv-02524, OKW/5:17-cv-01032, OKW/5:17-cv-01044, OKW/5:17-cv-01047, OR/3:17-cv-01528 (CMD)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: SONIC CORP. CUSTOMER
DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION

MDL No. 2807

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in two Western District of Oklahoma actions, listed on
Schedule A, move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Western District of
Oklahoma.1 This litigation consists of five actions pending in three districts, as listed on Schedule
A.2 Plaintiffs in the remaining Western District of Oklahoma action and the District of Oregon
action support the motion or, alternatively, support centralization in the Northern District of Ohio.
Plaintiffs in the District of Nevada action and the Northern District of Ohio potential tag-along action
support centralization in the Northern District of Ohio. Defendant Sonic Corp. opposes
centralization or, alternatively, supports centralization in the Western District of Oklahoma.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that centralization under
Section 1407 in the Northern District of Ohio will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions—all of which are putative
nationwide class actions—share factual issues concerning an incident in which Sonic’s point-of-sale
system was breached, allowing computer hackers to gain access to up to 5 million individuals’
personally identifiable information. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification and other issues; and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

*

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan and Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle took no part in the decision of this
matter. Additionally, one or more Panel members who could be members of the putative classes in
this litigation have renounced their participation in these classes and have participated in this
decision.
1

After the conclusion of briefing, the Western District of Oklahoma actions were reassigned
to a newly-appointed judge, and movants changed their position to also support centralization in the
Northern District of Ohio or, alternatively, in the District of Nevada. The actions have since been
reassigned to the initially-assigned judge.
2

The Panel also has been notified of three potentially-related actions pending in the District
of Arizona, the Northern District of Ohio, and the Northern District of Texas. These and any other
related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1, and 7.2.

-2In opposing centralization, defendant argues, inter alia, that (1) informal cooperation is
preferable to Section 1407 centralization, (2) unique facts and circumstances predominate over
common questions of fact, and (3) the common factual issues are not sufficiently complex to warrant
centralization, particularly as the litigation involves only one defendant. Section 1407 “does not
require a complete identity of common factual issues or parties as a prerequisite to transfer, and the
presence of . . . differing legal theories is not significant where, as here, the actions still arise from
a common factual core.” In re: Auto Body Shop Antitrust Litig., 37 F. Supp. 3d 1388, 1390 (J.P.M.L.
2014). The factual overlap among these actions is substantial, as they all arise from the same data
breach, and all allege that Sonic failed to put in place reasonable data protections. All actions allege
similar claims, including for negligence. The Panel previously has centralized a similar number of
data breach actions, even those involving a lone defendant. See In re: Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc.,
Employee Data Sec. Breach Litig., 232 F. Supp. 3d 1348 (J.P.M.L. 2016).
We are persuaded that the Northern District of Ohio—a centrally-located and easily
accessible location—is an appropriate transferee forum for this litigation. All responding plaintiffs
support this district, in the first instance or in the alternative. The Northern District of Ohio potential
tag-along action is assigned to Judge James S. Gwin, an experienced transferee judge who we are
confident will steer these cases on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the
Northern District of Ohio, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable James S.
Gwin for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
R. David Proctor

Charles R. Breyer
Catherine D. Perry

IN RE: SONIC CORP. CUSTOMER
DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION

SCHEDULE A

District of Nevada
DOLEMBO v. SONIC CORP., C.A. No. 2:17-02524
Western District of Oklahoma
HUFFER, ET AL. v. SONIC CORP., C.A. No. 5:17-01032
RAMIREZ v. SONIC CORP., C.A. No. 5:17-01044
LEWIN, ET AL. v. SONIC CORP., C.A. No. 5:17-01047
District of Oregon
VANDERZANDEN, ET AL. v. SONIC CORP., C.A. No. 3:17-01528

MDL No. 2807