Genworth, Plaintiff Move Va. Court to Stay Action Pending JPML MOVEit Transfer Ruling
Plaintiff Herman Burkett and defendant Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance (GLAIC) jointly moved the court for an order staying Burkett's action, pending a ruling by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) on a motion for transfer of actions…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
for centralized pretrial proceedings pending before it in Re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, said their Friday filing (docket 3:23-cv-00528 ) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia in Richmond. The parties noted other judges in the district stayed related actions pending JPML, all of which listed Genworth Financial, Inc. (GFI) or parent GLAIC as a defendant. Plaintiff, a GLAIC customer, initiated the action related to the MOVEit data breach after Pension Benefit Information (PBI) advised GLAIC of a security event involving the software vulnerability in MOVEit file transfer software that PBI uses. In July, plaintiff Bruce Bailey in Bailey v. Progress Software Corp. and Pension Benefit Information filed a motion requesting the JPML to transfer MOVEit actions to the U.S. District Court for Minnesota for coordinated pretrial proceedings (see 2307120053). The panel’s hearing on the transfer motion is set for Sept. 28. Progress Software Corp. (PSC), which sells MOVEit software; Ipswitch, which developed MOVEit; and PBI, which used the software to perform services for GLAI, GFI and others, support the transfer motion, but PSC, PBI and GFI asked that the actions be transferred to the District of Massachusetts rather than Minnesota. Last month, plaintiffs in Hale v. Genworth Financial filed an opposition to Bailey’s motion to transfer (see 2308250037), saying Genworth “improperly sought” to tag several actions against GFI as related actions in the MDL.