Responses Due March 2 on Motion to Centralize T-Mobile Cases in Seattle
Stephan Clark, a plaintiff in one of the earliest-filed class actions stemming from T-Mobile’s latest data breach, believes there are enough similar cases, 11 so far, to support their “centralization” under a single U.S. district judge. So said his motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, dated Feb. 8 and newly docketed as case MDL No. 3073, to consolidate the 11 cases in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle where his own case is pending.
Responses to the motion are due March 2, said a text-only notice at the JPML. Any replies are due March 9, it said. The first indication the T-Mobile class actions were headed for the JPML, as had been expected, was when the U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Newark entered a text-only notice Feb. 15 (docket 2:23-cv-00367) in Gonzalez v. T-Mobile of a motion having been filed with the JPML to transfer that case to Western Washington (see 2302160025). But the notice then gave little additional detail about that motion to transfer and centralize.
The uniformity of support among the 16 plaintiffs in the 11 T-Mobile class actions to centralize the cases in Seattle is in sharp contrast to the diversity of opinion shown over transferee venues among plaintiffs in the dozen or more class actions arising from last summer’s Samsung data breach. Plaintiffs in the multiple Samsung class actions filed in six jurisdictions were evenly split into camps that wanted the cases centralized in Northern California in San Francisco or the New Jersey district in Newark (see 2211110001). The JPML on Feb. 1 ordered the cases consolidated under U.S. District Judge Christine O’Hearn for New Jersey in Camden (see 2302020002).
The data breach at issue in the 11 T-Mobile cases “involved millions of individuals,” said the motion. Like the T-Mobile data breach in 2021, the latest “received a great deal of publicity,” it said. “Accordingly, numerous tag-along actions will likely be filed,” and those, too, should be consolidated in Western Washington as they're filed, it said.
Western Washington “is the appropriate transferee forum here,” said the motion. The 11 actions listed are pending in eight jurisdictions, with Western Washington the only court to have three pending, it said. None of the actions has “progressed past the initial filing of the complaint,” it said. The location where cases have progressed furthest is thus “a neutral factor in the instant case, and the location of the largest number of cases “weighs in favor” of Western Washington, it said.
Other factors “also weigh heavily” in favor of the Seattle court, said the motion. T-Mobile maintains its corporate headquarters in Bellevue, Washington, about 10 miles from the proposed transferee courthouse, “where many of the crucial witnesses and documents will be located,” it said. The judges of Western Washington “have the experience, skill, and caseload appropriate to oversee the instant action,” it said. The district has no other MDL cases pending, so it’s “not currently overtaxed with other multidistrict dockets,” it said.
Unlike when the cases on the 2021 T-Mobile data breach were before the JPML, Western Washington “no longer holds a high vacancy rate” of judges, nor is it experiencing any “judicial emergencies,” said the motion. The court has four active judges and 11 senior-status judges, “any of whom would be well suited to oversee this litigation,” it said.
If the JPML decides Western Washington can’t accommodate the 11 cases, the U.S. District Court for Western Missouri in Kansas City “is also an appropriate forum for this litigation,” said the motion. It was the transferee forum for litigation stemming from T-Mobile 2021 data breach, plus it’s “a central and accessible forum for all parties,” it said. T-Mobile’s second headquarters are in Overland Park, Kansas, a 25-minute drive from the district’s main courthouse, it said: “Subsequently, some documents and witnesses will likely be located in close proximity.”