Quintero v. Trustees of Columbia University
Quintero et al. v. Trustees of Columbia University; Holmes v. Trustees of Columbia University; Murray v. Trustees of Columbia University; McQueen v. Trustees of Columbia University; Daley v. Trustees of Columbia University; Hall v. Trustees of Columbia University; Sabedra v. Trustees of Columbia University; Nadeau v. Trustees of Columbia University; Babb v. Trustees of Columbia University; Linich et al v. Trustees of Columbia University
- P. Castel
- 1:25-cv-05541
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Quintero v. Trustees of Columbia University, Judge Castel denied plaintiffs’ application to consolidate ten data-breach cases.
The plaintiffs and defendant in the ten listed Columbia University data-breach cases. The application to combine those cases was denied, and the provided operative text does not impose the proposed schedule for interim class-counsel applications or a consolidated complaint.
What happened
Quintero et al. v. Trustees of Columbia University and nine related cases concern an alleged unauthorized access to Columbia University’s network systems. The plaintiffs’ letter said the incident exposed personal information and that the cases involved overlapping claims and proposed nationwide classes.
The plaintiffs asked the court to combine the ten cases, including any future related cases, under the lowest-numbered case. They also proposed deadlines for applications to serve as interim class counsel and for filing one consolidated complaint.
Judge P. Kevin Castel denied the application to consolidate. The order refers to the court’s September 29, 2025 order; the provided text does not explain the reason for the denial.
The detailed version
- Quintero v. Trustees of Columbia University · No. 1:25-cv-05541
- P. Castel
- Oct. 15, 2025
Background
The provided document concerns ten related cases in the Southern District of New York:
- Quintero et al. v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 1:25-cv-5541 - Holmes v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 1:25-cv-6232 - Murray v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 1:25-cv-6283 - McQueen v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 1:25-cv-6622 - Daley v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 1:25-cv-6665 - Hall v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 1:25-cv-6664 - Sabedra v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 1:25-cv-6698 - Nadeau v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 1:25-cv-6720 - Babb v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 1:25-cv-6745 - Linich et al. v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 1:25-cv-6928
The plaintiffs’ collective letter described the cases as arising from the same alleged data breach involving unauthorized access to Columbia’s network systems. The letter said Columbia had reported that the breach exposed personally identifiable information of current and former students, employees, and applicants. It also said the cases asserted overlapping theories, including negligence and an alleged failure to protect the information.
Requested consolidation
The plaintiffs asked the court to consolidate the ten cases under Quintero, the lowest-numbered case. They also requested that any future related cases be included. In addition, they proposed a process and deadlines for applications to serve as interim class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), followed by a deadline for filing a consolidated complaint.
The plaintiffs’ letter cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), which permits consolidation when cases share common legal or factual questions. The letter argued that consolidation would promote efficiency and reduce the risk of inconsistent results. It also stated that no party opposed the requested relief.
Ruling
The operative order states: “Application to consolidate DENIED.” It refers to the court’s September 29, 2025 order, but the provided text does not include that order’s reasoning. The court therefore did not consolidate the ten cases in the ruling shown here, and the proposed deadlines for interim class-counsel applications and a consolidated complaint were not entered in the operative ruling.
The document also includes a proposed order stating that consolidation was granted and setting those deadlines. Because the document’s operative text states that the application was denied, this summary treats the denial as the court’s ruling.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.