2 More Actions Transferred to MOVEit MDL; AMC Seeks to Vacate CTO-20
Two class actions involving the May data breach of Progress Software Corp. were transferred to In Re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation in conditional transfer order 26 (CTO-26) before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Thursday. Mendez v. Progress…
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.
Software Corp. (docket 1:24-cv-00018) and Segal et al v. Corebridge Financial (docket 4:23-cv-03727) involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts in Boston and assigned to U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, said the order. Thursday, PSC said transfer of Newman v. American Multi-Cinema Inc. (docket 2:23-cv-02358) to the MDL is warranted because it shares common questions of fact with cases in the MDL and transfer will promote “the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.” PSC was responding to defendant AMC’s Dec. 21 motion to vacate CTO-20, in which the movie chain said efficiency in Newman would be best achieved outside the MDL. If Newman were transferred, it would unnecessarily delay resolution of AMC’s motion to compel arbitration, which, if granted, would allow the case to proceed in arbitration, not a court of law, it said. The panel should allow the District of Kansas time to rule on the motion to compel arbitration in Newman before transferring it to the MDL, it said. In her Dec. 21 response opposing arbitration (docket 2:23-CV-02358), plaintiff Melanie Newman said her claims arise from the MOVEit data breach “that occurred long after she terminated her employment relationship with AMC.” AMC “now seeks to avoid answering to Plaintiff’s claims arising out of the data breach by attempting to tie its failure to implement reasonable data security to Plaintiff’s role as an employee of the company.”