T-Mobile Data Breach Plaintiffs Differ on Choice of Transferee Venues

The plaintiffs in three of the dozen class actions stemming from T-Mobile’s Jan. 19 disclosure that bad actors gained access to the personally identifiable information of 37 million customer accounts all support a Feb. 8 motion to transfer the 12 cases to a single venue for pretrial consolidation under a single judge (see 2302200001) but disagree what the venue should be.

They’re the first plaintiffs to respond to plaintiff Stephan Clark’s motion since the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation put it out for public comment with a March 2 deadline. The panel since extended the deadline to March 16 at the request of pro se plaintiff Stephen Hart, who said he needed the extra time as he tries to retain Keller Rohrback to represent him (see 2302240003). Any transfer order would apply automatically to the 12 cases already pending before the JPML, plus any tag-along cases to follow afterward.

Clark’s preferred transferee venue, U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle, is where his own case (docket 2:23-cv-00103) is pending, and it’s about 10 miles west of T-Mobile’s primary headquarters in Bellevue. His backup preference is U.S. District Court for Western Missouri in Kansas City, about 19 miles northeast of T-Mobile’s secondary headquarters in Overland Park, Kansas.

The six plaintiffs in another class action pending in Seattle, Bailey v. T-Mobile (docket 2:23-cv-00211), unequivocally support Clark’s motion to consolidate the cases in that court, said their response Wednesday (Case MDL No. 3073), with no further explanation. But Christine Cortazal, the sole plaintiff in the first-filed class action, Cortazal v. T-Mobile (docket 23-cv-01220), filed Jan. 21 in U.S. District Court for Northern Florida in Pensacola, supports consolidation in U.S. District Court for Kansas in Kansas City, said her filing.

The last of the parties so far to weigh in with an opinion, Frankie Gonzalez, the sole plaintiff in Gonzalez v. T-Mobile (docket 2:23-cv-00367), filed Jan. 23 in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Newark, supports the Western District of Missouri as the “superior transferee choice,” said his filing. He noted that’s movant Clark’s second preference. Gonzalez’s lawyer is James Cecchi of Carella Byrne, newly appointed interim lead counsel in the Samsung data breach class actions consolidated under U.S. District Judge Christine O’Hearn in Camden, New Jersey (see 2302280010).

Though “some informal coordination” has happened with counsel for various plaintiffs and T-Mobile, “to date such coordination has been sporadic, minimal, and ineffective,” said Cortazal’s filing in support of transfer to Kansas City, Kansas. She disagrees Seattle is “the most appropriate transferee court” it said. Though T-Mobile’s headquarters is in that district, the Western District of Washington “is not well-situated to preside over this action due to an ongoing pandemic-related backlog of cases,” it said. Though Clark’s initial motion to transfer indicated the Seattle court “no longer is experiencing the issues it faced in 2021, that is, unfortunately, not yet true,” it said.

Transfer to the District of Kansas “is most appropriate,” said Cortazal’s filing, “given the strong factual connection” to that court “and its geographically central and accessible location.” Her backup preference would be the Western District of Missouri, about three miles to the southeast of the Kansas court, it said.

The District of Kansas “has the infrastructure to easily accommodate out-of-town lawyers, parties, and witnesses,” said Cortazal’s filing. Unlike the Seattle court, the District of Kansas “is arguably one of the most convenient and readily accessible locations for any litigation as it is geographically central and has a large amount of reasonable accommodations for those traveling to the court,” it said.

One of the 12 class actions before the JPML, Corkins v. T-Mobile (docket 2:23-cv-02031), is pending in the District of Kansas before U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree, said Cortazal’s filing. Crabtree “is an experienced jurist with a demonstrated ability to oversee and adjudicate issues of this matter if consolidated before him,” it said. He’s “a perfect choice to steer this litigation on a prudent and expeditious course,” it said.

As a backup, U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes for Western Missouri “presided over the previous data breach case” involving T-Mobile, said Cortazal’s filing. Wimes “has demonstrated his ability to oversee the efficient adjudication of pretrial matters,” it said. He’s familiar “with many of the legal issues involved” in the first T-Mobile data breach case, “many of which will undoubtedly arise here as well,” it said.

Plaintiff Gonzalez argued Western Missouri “is the appropriate transferee venue for this litigation” because “it would be a convenient and easily accessible location for the T-Mobile parties and witnesses,” said his filing. Like Cortazal, Gonzalez praised Wimes for “his ability to oversee the efficient adjudication of pretrial matters” and his experience presiding over the previous T-Mobile data breach litigation. His filing indicated no preference for an alternative court.