San Diego Plaintiffs Wrong to Oppose Stay of Data Breach Suit Pending JPML Action, Says T-Mobile

Now that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has scheduled oral argument for May 25 on the petition to transfer the 16 data breach class actions against T-Mobile for consolidation under a single judge (see 2304170007), there’s “a strong likelihood” the JPML will resolve the petition in less than two months, said T-Mobile. It filed a reply Monday (docket 3:23-cv-00427) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego in support of a stay, pending JPML action, in one of those class actions, Shoemaker v. T-Mobile, over the opposition of the 46 named plaintiffs in that case (see 2304180014).

The San Diego class action is unusual because it’s alone among the 16 lawsuits arising from T-Mobile’s most recent data breach in which the plaintiffs didn’t jointly move with T-Mobile for a stay or at least a deadline extension in the proceedings, pending the JPML’s decision on transfer and consolidation. The case also is noteworthy for its unusually high count of named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs argue that a stay “will all but guarantee weeks, months, or longer of prejudicial delay.”

Recognizing the inefficiencies “with pressing ahead with litigation” while the MDL petition is pending, plaintiffs in 13 of the related cases agreed to stays, all of which have been granted by seven different courts, said T-Mobile’s reply. The only cases that weren't stayed are the San Diego case and two cases in which T-Mobile hasn’t been served, it said. The San Diego plaintiffs would like the court “to upset this uniform, efficient treatment,” but they don’t “establish any justification for pushing this case forward while others are stayed,” it said.

The San Diego plaintiffs’ opposition to a stay “rests on incorrect assertions” that the stay T-Mobile seeks is unlimited in time and scope and will prejudice the plaintiffs, said T-Mobile’s reply. But with a JPML ruling on the petition “imminent,” the plaintiffs’ attempt “to manufacture prejudice falls flat,” it said. None of their arguments supports denying T-Mobile’s motion to stay, it said.

The plaintiffs are wrong that courts are reluctant to stay cases pending resolution of a transfer and consolidation motion, said T-Mobile’s reply. Most courts have concluded it’s often appropriate to stay preliminary pretrial proceedings while a motion to transfer and consolidate is pending with the JPML “because of the judicial resources that are conserved,” it said. T-Mobile’s motion to stay “cites a mountain of authority demonstrating that courts consistently grant motions to stay” pending a JPML ruling, finding it would be a waste of judicial resources to allow an action to proceed if there’s a possibility of consolidation, it said.

Though the JPML’s May 25 hearing is “imminent,” the San Diego plaintiffs “persist in claiming” T-Mobile seeks a stay of indefinite duration, said T-Mobile’s reply. The plaintiffs claim they would face “severe prejudice” because the actual transfer or consolidation wouldn’t occur for weeks or months after the hearing, it said. The plaintiffs are wrong because the JPML “routinely rules on petitions shortly after the hearing,” it said. Recent JPML petitions in data breach cases were decided “mere days” after oral argument, it said.