The opinion
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL FI LED
:
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BY sf JulieOlsen DEPUTY
IN RE: POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC.,
AND POWERSCHOOL GROUP, LLC CUSTOMER
DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION MDL No. 3149
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in the Western District of Missouri J.J. action listed on
Schedule A move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Western District of
Missouri. This litigation consists of 32 actions pending in three districts, as listed on Schedule A.
In addition, the parties have informed the Panel of 23 related actions pending in eight districts. !
Most responding parties support centralization. Defendants PowerSchool Holdings, Inc.,
and PowerSchool Group LLC (collectively “PowerSchool”), and the responding plaintiffs □□ all
but six cases support or do not oppose centralization.” There is less agreement on selection of the
transferee district. PowerSchool requests centralization in the Eastern District of California or the
Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in more than 30 actions likewise support centralization
in those two districts, in the first instance or in the alternative. Other plaintiffs, as their primary or
alternative position, request centralization the Western District of Missouri, Southern District of
California, Central District of California, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern District of New
York, Middle District of North Carolina, or District of Minnesota.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that the actions listed
on Schedule A involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Southern District
of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions arising from a recent
cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to PowerSchool’s Student Information
System software, which schools use to store current and former students’ and staff members’
* Judge Roger T. Benitez did not participate in the decision of this matter. 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.
' These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1,
and 7.2.
2 The six cases are the E.D. California Buack-Shelton, Vargha, Brown, and Greci actions listed on
Schedule A, and the potential tag-along actions Joseph v. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., No. 25-
0517 (E.D. Cal.), and Hisserich v. PowerSchool Group LLC, No. 25-0444 (E.D. Cal.).
personal information. Plaintiffs are students, students’ guardians, and school staff seeking
certification of overlapping nationwide and statewide class actions of individuals affected by the
data breach. The actions involve virtually identical claims for negligence, breach of contract, and
unjust enrichment. Discovery in all actions will focus on how and when the breach occurred, the
sufficiency of PowerSchool’s data security practices, and how and when PowerSchool notified
breach victims. Centralization will avoid the possibility of inconsistent pretrial rulings,
particularly with respect to class certification. With a total of 55 cases pending in nine districts,
centralization will provide efficiencies and conserve the resources of the parties, witnesses, and
courts.
Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of California Buack-Shelton, Vargha, Brown, and Greci
actions, as well as plaintiffs in the Eastern District of California Joseph and Hisserich related
actions, maintain that informal coordination is feasible. They argue that the 41 Eastern District of
California cases will soon be consolidated before a single judge, effectively leaving only fourteen
additional cases spread across eight other district courts. They maintain that the Panel previously
has declined to centralize in comparable circumstances.3
We are not persuaded that informal coordination is the most efficient route to resolving this
litigation. None of the parties have moved under Section 1404 to transfer the actions to a common
district. Moreover, the decisions cited by opponents of centralization are readily distinguishable.
In most, motions for transfer via Section 1404 had been filed; in some, such motions already had
been granted. Three of the four involved fewer than five actions. See StockX, 412 F. Supp. 3d at
1365 (denying centralization of three actions pending in three districts); [24]7.AI, 338 F. Supp. 3d
at 1347 (same); Hudson’s Bay, 326 F. Supp. 3d at 1373 (denying centralization of four actions
pending in two districts). In the lone case where the motion encompassed more than twenty
actions, “all responding parties represented that they were amenable to Section 1404(a) transfer in
the absence of Section 1407 centralization.” Best Buy, 804 F. Supp. 2d at 1378. Here, there is no
similar assurance that any Section 1404 motions—if filed—will be uncontested.
The Southern District of California is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation.
A potential tag-along action is pending in the district, and related state court litigation is pending
in San Diego Superior Court. Centralization in this district encourages the efficient coordination
of state and federal proceedings. Judge Roger T. Benitez, to whom we assign this MDL, is an
experienced jurist well-versed in the nuances of multidistrict litigation. We are confident that he
will steer this litigation on a prudent and expeditious course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the
Southern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Roger
T. Benitez for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
3 See, e.g., In re StockX Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 412 F. Supp. 3d 1363 (J.P.M.L. 2019);
In re [24]7.AI, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 338 F. Supp. 3d 1345 (J.P.M.L. 2018); In
re Hudson’s Bay Co. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 326 F. Supp. 3d 1372 (J.P.M.L. 2018); In
re Best Buy Co., Cal. Song-Beverly Credit Card Act Litig., 804 F. Supp. 2d 1376 (J.P.M.L. 2011).
-3-
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Karen K. Caldwell
Chair
| hereby attest and certify on _Apr18. 2025 that the foregoing .
document is a full, true and correct copy of the original on file Nathaniel M. Gorton Matthew F, Kennelly
in my office and in my legal custody. SSSI David Cc Norton Dale A Kimball
Clerk, U.S. District Court Madeline Cox Arleo
Southern District of California \WWesnmiea
By: s/J.Olsen Qa
Deputy
IN RE: POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC.,
AND POWERSCHOOL GROUP, LLC CUSTOMER
DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION MDL No. 3149
SCHEDULE A
Eastern District of California
BUACK-SHELTON, ET AL. v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC.,
C.A. No. 2:25−00093
BAKER v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00096
KINNEY v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., C.A. No. 2:25−00098
VARGHA v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., C.A. No. 2:25−00110
F.C. v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00136
GILES v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., C.A. No. 2:25−00139
STRELZIN v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP, LLC ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00140
A.A. v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00141
E.H. v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., C.A. No. 2:25−00152
PETTINGER ET AL. v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00159
MARTINEZ-TURNBOW v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC.,
C.A. No. 2:25−00165
CROCKRAN v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., C.A. No. 2:25−00171
HABBAL ET AL. v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., C.A. No. 2:25−00173
MAYFEILD v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00203
AREDE v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., C.A. No. 2:25−00204
GRIFFIN v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC, C.A. No. 2:25−00206
WHITE v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., C.A. No. 2:25−00207
GRECI ET AL. v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., C.A. No. 2:25−00208
LA COUNT ET AL. v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:25−00209
KEIGLEY v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00210
CHAMPNEY ET AL. v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., C.A. No. 2:25−00211
SCHWARTZ v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., C.A. No. 2:25−00230
OKONI v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP, LLC ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00231
FLICK ET AL. v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00232
FAIRCLOTH v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00252
BROWN ET AL. v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., C.A. No. 2:25−00256
ZARIF v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00259
GRAMELSPACHER v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:25−00271
CAMPBELL v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00310
Western District of Missouri
KRUTSINGER v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. ET AL., C.A. No. 4:25−00057
J.I. ET AL. v. POWERSCHOOL, C.A. No. 4:25−04006
Eastern District of New York
J.B. ET AL. v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., C.A. No. 2:25−00327