Rumely et al v. Pediatrix Medical Group et al

Filing 17

TRANSFER ORDER re: pldg. ( 1 in MDL No. 2994) Transferring 3 action(s) to Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II in the S.D. Florida.Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 6/4/2021. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2994, CAS/3:21-cv-00152, FLS/0:21-cv-60347, FLS/1:21-cv-20375, MOW/4:21-cv-00119, SC/4:21-cv-00500 (TF)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: MEDNAX SERVICES, INC., CUSTOMER
DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION

MDL No. 2994

TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:* Defendants Mednax, Inc.; Mednax Services, Inc.; Pediatrix Medical
Group; and Pediatrix Medical Group of Kansas, P.C. (collectively, Mednax) move under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Southern District of Florida. Alternatively, Mednax does
not oppose centralization in the Eastern District of New York, the District of South Carolina, or
the Western District of Missouri. The litigation consists of five actions pending in four districts,
as listed on Schedule A. 1 Plaintiffs in the two Southern District of Florida actions support the
motion to centralize in the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff in the Western District of
Missouri action supports centralization and suggests the Western District of Missouri as the
transferee forum. Plaintiffs in the Southern District of California and District of South Carolina
actions oppose centralization or, alternatively, request centralization in the Southern District of
California. American Anesthesiology, Inc., a former affiliate of Mednax and a defendant in the
District of South Carolina action, supports centralization in the Southern District of Florida or,
alternatively, in the Eastern District of New York or the District of South Carolina.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, 2 we find that centralization
under Section 1407 in the Southern District of Florida 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 or statewide class actions—share factual issues relating to a June
2020 incident in which Mednax’s e-mail system was breached, potentially compromising the
personally identifiable and health-related information of nearly two million individuals. All
* 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

The Panel has been notified of one potentially-related action pending in the District of Arizona.
This and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1, and
7.2.
2

In light of the concerns about the spread of the COVID-19 virus (coronavirus), the Panel heard
oral argument by videoconference at its hearing session of May 27, 2021. See Suppl. Notice of
Hearing Session, MDL No. 2994 (J.P.M.L. May 10, 2021), ECF No. 40.

-2plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to implement appropriate measures to protect their personal
information, failed to take steps to mitigate the consequences of the breach or prevent additional
breaches, and failed to provide prompt notice of the breach to affected persons. All plaintiffs assert
similar claims for violation of state privacy and consumer protection laws, negligence, and/or
breach of contract, and all plaintiffs allege similar injuries. 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.
No party disputes that the actions involve common issues of fact and similar claims.
Rather, the opposing plaintiffs argue that there are too few involved actions to justify centralization
and that alternative means of coordination would be preferable. We do not agree. This litigation
involves six related actions (including the potential tag-along) pending in five districts, which are
spread across the country from Florida to California. All defendants request centralization and
plaintiffs in three of the five actions on the motion support centralization. 3 Different counsel
represent plaintiffs in each of the involved actions. Given the number of parties, counsel, and courts
involved in this litigation, alternatives to centralization do not appear practicable. Centralization
is warranted in these circumstances.
The Southern District of Florida is an appropriate transferee forum for this litigation. Two
actions are pending in this district. All defendants support centralization there. The Mednax and
Pediatrix defendants’ headquarters and principle places of business are located in the Southern
District of Florida, and thus relevant evidence and witnesses likely will be located there. Judge
Rodolfo A. Ruiz II, to whom we assign the litigation, is a skilled jurist who has not yet had the
opportunity to preside over an MDL. We are confident that he will steer this litigation on a prudent
course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on the attached Schedule A and
pending outside the Southern District of Florida are transferred to the Southern District of Florida
and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Rodolfo A. Ruiz II for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Karen K. Caldwell
Chair
Catherine D. Perry
Matthew F. Kennelly
Roger T. Benitez
3

Nathaniel M. Gorton
David C. Norton
Dale A. Kimball

Plaintiff in the potential tag-along action did not respond to the motion.

IN RE: MEDNAX SERVICES, INC., CUSTOMER
DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION

MDL No. 2994

SCHEDULE A
Southern District of California
RUMELY, ET AL. v. MEDNAX, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:21−00152
Southern District of Florida
DAVIS v. MEDNAX SERVICES, INC., C.A. No. 0:21−60347
COHEN v. MEDNAX SERVICES, INC., C.A. No. 1:21−20375
Western District of Missouri
A.W. v. PEDIATRIX MEDICAL GROUP OF KANSAS, P.C., C.A. No. 4:21−00119
District of South Carolina
NIELSEN, ET AL. v. MEDNAX, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:21−00500