Latest Conditional Transfer Order Brings Mass. Court Case Total to 166 in MOVEit MDL

Allison Burroughs for U.S. District Court of Massachusetts in Boston, said the filing. Newman v. American Multi-Cinema (AMC) was transferred from U.S. District court for Kansas in Kansas City. Plaintiff Melanie Newman’s Aug. 17 privacy class action (docket 2:23-cv-2358) alleges AMC failed to properly secure and safeguard her personally identifiable information that was compromised in Progress Software’s MOVEit May file transfer software data breach. Defendant AMC filed a motion Nov. 21 to compel arbitration. Elsewhere in the MDL, defendant Midland States Bank withdrew its notice of opposition to CTO-15 as it relates to Gorman v. Progress Software Corp. (docket 3:23-cv-50397), said a Thursday notice before the JPML, and CTO-19 was finalized Wednesday, transferring three cases to the Boston court. Thursday, the JPML vacated CTO-13 after Everling v. First Merchants Bank (docket 1:23-01287) was dismissed in the Southern District of Indiana following the plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. In a response in opposition (docket 1:23-cv-00738) to EMS Management and Consultants’ motion to stay a case involving the MOVEit breach, plaintiff Samantha O’Neal said Tuesday the defendant is trying to “unnecessarily delay” the case. EMS filed a motion Nov. 9 to stay all pending deadlines in the case until 30 days after the JPML issued a decision on whether to transfer the case to the Massachusetts court. O’Neal “strategically decided to solely focus” her actions on EMS, “intentionally excluding Progress and other commonly named defendants associated with the alleged oversight failure,” said the response. “There is a high likelihood” for cases such as O’Neal’s that are brought solely against customer-facing defendants “to be remanded after the completion of common discovery and motion practice related to Progress,” said the filing. “Considering the strong likelihood that the case will be remanded, imposing a stay on all pending deadlines would unnecessarily delay case progression and responses to pending motions until post-remand,” it said. O’Neal “only stands to be harmed” by the court’s acceptance of EMS’ motion to stay, said the response. If the court grants the motion, O’Neal will be forced to postpone her presentation of arguments “ripe for attention by the District Court” until 30 days after the case has been transferred. As demonstrated in O’Neal’s first amended complaint, “every moment spent diverting the Court’s attention away from the merits of the case increases the risk and probability” that she will suffer “additional instances of actual misuse of her personal identifying information,” it said.