Niosi v. Eisner Advisory Group LLC

Background

Eisner Advisory Group LLC, described in the order as an accounting and auditing firm, publicly announced on April 8, 2025, that it had experienced a September 2023 data breach affecting more than 85,000 individuals. Christopher Niosi, Andrew Marston, Robert Crist, and Rebecca L. Lemmons then filed three separate proposed class actions arising from the breach. The complaints asserted overlapping claims, including negligence, contract-related claims, and unjust enrichment; the Crist and Lemmons complaint also asserted additional claims and California statutory violations. Each plaintiff or group of plaintiffs sought to represent similarly situated individuals nationwide.

The plaintiffs jointly moved to consolidate the three cases and appoint interim co-lead and liaison counsel while the court considered class certification. Eisner did not oppose the motion.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the cases shared common questions of law and fact because they arose from the same data breach, included overlapping legal claims, and sought to represent the same general class of individuals. Consolidation would promote judicial efficiency and avoid duplicative filings, costs, and delays.

The court also considered the proposed interim counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g). It found that Carl V. Malmstrom, Philip J. Krzeski, and Marc H. Edelson, together with their firms, had experience with nationwide class actions and similar claims and had sufficient resources. The court found a co-lead structure appropriate because the alleged breach potentially affected many people, the plaintiffs agreed to the structure, and counsel represented that they could work together efficiently without duplicating their efforts.

The court approved David A. Goodwin as interim liaison counsel, tentatively understanding that his role would be limited to procedural advice and services related to litigating in the District of Minnesota, including coordinating communications and filings.

Order

The court GRANTED the plaintiffs’ joint motion. It ordered that Niosi v. Eisner Advisory Group LLC, No. 25-cv-1409; Marston v. Eisner Advisory Group LLC, No. 25-cv-1568; and Crist v. EisnerAmper LLP, No. 25-cv-1573, be consolidated for pretrial and trial proceedings. Niosi was designated as the first-filed lead case, and future filings must use the caption “In re Eisner Advisory Group Data Breach Litigation.”

The plaintiffs must file a consolidated complaint within 42 days of the order. Eisner then has 42 days to answer or otherwise respond. If Eisner files a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, the plaintiffs have 28 days to respond and Eisner has 21 days to reply. After the consolidated complaint is filed, the clerk must administratively close the other two case numbers and add their parties and attorneys to the lead case.

The court appointed Carl V. Malmstrom, Philip J. Krzeski, and Marc H. Edelson as interim co-lead class counsel and David A. Goodwin as interim liaison counsel for the consolidated action. The order did not decide whether a class should be certified or resolve the underlying claims arising from the data breach.