In re Christie's Data Breach Litigation
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-04221
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re Christie's Data Breach Litigation: Judge Furman ordered briefing on standing and settlement issues before deciding whether to approve the proposed class settlement.
The plaintiffs, class representatives, proposed settlement class members, and defendant in the data-breach litigation are affected. The order specifically requires filings from the plaintiffs, class representatives, and defendant before the court considers standing and the proposed settlement.
What happened
In In re Christie's Data Breach Litigation, the plaintiffs and defendant proposed a settlement for people whose private information was compromised in a data breach. The court had not yet decided whether the plaintiffs had the legal right to bring the case or whether to approve the settlement.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a memorandum addressing standing, the lack of relief for proposed state subclasses, the settlement class’s definition, whether payments should go to all known class members without requiring claims, electronic notice and payment options, and a proposed order stopping related lawsuits while approval was pending. Each class representative must also file a declaration describing specific assistance provided in investigating the case. The defendant must respond to the plaintiffs’ submissions and state its position on standing.
Judge Jesse M. Furman did not decide standing, approve or reject the settlement, or rule on the defendant’s earlier motion to dismiss. He ordered the plaintiffs’ submissions by January 9, 2025, and the defendant’s response by January 16, 2025.
The detailed version
- In re Christie's Data Breach Litigation · No. 1:24-cv-04221
- Jesse Furman
- Dec. 18, 2024
Background
The court was considering a proposed class-action settlement arising from a data breach. Before approving a class settlement, the court explained that it must determine whether the plaintiffs have standing—the legal requirement that they have a sufficient connection to the dispute to invoke the federal court’s authority. The court also noted that the defendant had previously moved to dismiss for lack of standing.
Questions the Court Required the Plaintiffs to Address
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a supplemental memorandum of no more than twenty pages by January 9, 2025. The memorandum must address:
- the significance, if any, of the proposed settlement’s failure to provide relief for the state subclasses identified in the first amended complaint; - why the settlement class is limited to people residing in the United States whose private information was compromised and who received notice of the data breach, when the first amended complaint appears to define the proposed classes more broadly; - whether, if the class members are known because they received notice, the settlement should provide payments to all class members instead of requiring members to submit claims; - whether the court can or should require electronic notice that would allow class members to submit claims or request payments through services such as Zelle, Venmo, or PayPal; and - why the court should stop and pause lawsuits by settlement class members concerning the released claims while the court considers final approval of the settlement.
The court also ordered each class representative to submit a declaration by January 9, 2025, describing specifically what assistance that person provided in investigating the case.
Response and Disposition
The defendant must file a response of no more than ten pages by January 16, 2025. The response must particularly state whether the defendant agrees or disagrees with the plaintiffs’ position on standing and briefly explain that position.
This order required additional briefing and declarations. It did not decide whether the plaintiffs have standing, did not rule on the earlier motion to dismiss, and did not approve or reject the proposed settlement. Judge Jesse M. Furman entered the order on December 18, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.