In re Eisner Advisory Group, LLC Data Breach Litigation

Background

The consolidated action involved four cases arising from an alleged September 2023 data breach involving Eisner Advisory Group, LLC. The plaintiffs—David Fallen, Chris Ouellette, Hannah Watzka, and Timothy Rushing—filed the four cases in the Southern District of New York between April 11 and April 15, 2025. The court consolidated those cases and any other cases naming Eisner Advisory Group in connection with the alleged breach.

After an unsuccessful mediation, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Eisner Advisory Group moved to transfer the consolidated action to the District of Minnesota. On February 19, 2026, the plaintiffs notified the court that they did not oppose the motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404, which allows a federal district court to transfer a civil case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court first considered whether the case could properly have been brought in Minnesota. It found that federal jurisdiction existed under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) because the case was a class action involving more than $5 million, more than 100 proposed class members, and at least one class member who was a citizen of a different state from the defendant.

The court also found venue proper in Minnesota because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there: the data breach and related activities took place in Minnesota.

The court then considered the convenience and justice factors. It gave minimal weight to the plaintiffs’ choice of the Southern District of New York because this was a nationwide proposed class action, none of the named plaintiffs resided in that district, and all named plaintiffs did not oppose transfer. Minnesota was the location of the events underlying the claims, and most likely witnesses involved in work related to the breach were located there. The court found that the location of relevant documents, the convenience of the parties, and the availability of legal process also favored transfer. The parties’ relative financial resources were neutral on the record.

The court additionally found that the interests of justice favored transfer because of the case’s strong connection to Minnesota and because another action arising from the same facts was pending in the District of Minnesota.

Disposition

Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted the defendant’s motion to transfer. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion, transfer the consolidated cases to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, and close the case. The opinion decided venue and transfer; it did not decide the underlying data-breach claims.