In re Eisner Advisory Group, LLC Data Breach Litigation

Background

The consolidated action involved multiple cases arising from an alleged September 2023 data breach involving Eisner Advisory Group, LLC. David Fallen, Chris Ouellette, Hannah Watzka, and Timothy Rushing filed four separate actions in the Southern District of New York between April 11 and April 15, 2025. The court designated the cases as related and consolidated them, along with any other cases naming Eisner in connection with the alleged breach. After a court-ordered stay and an unsuccessful mediation, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on November 21, 2025.

Eisner moved to transfer the consolidated action to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. On February 19, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a notice stating that they did not oppose the motion.

Transfer 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 the class-action statute because the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, the proposed class had more than 100 members, and at least one class member was a citizen of a different state than the defendant. The court also found venue proper because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Minnesota, including the data breach and related activities.

The court then evaluated convenience and justice factors. It gave minimal weight to the plaintiffs’ choice of the New York forum because the case was a nationwide proposed class action, none of the named plaintiffs resided in New York, and all named plaintiffs did not oppose transfer. Minnesota was the location of the events underlying the claims, and most likely witnesses—people whose work related to the data breach—were located there. The location of relevant documents, the parties’ convenience, and the availability of legal process to compel witnesses also favored transfer. The parties’ relative financial means were neutral because the record did not resolve that factor. The interests of justice also favored transfer because of the case’s strong connection to Minnesota and another action arising from the same facts pending in the District of Minnesota.

Disposition

Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted Eisner’s motion to transfer. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, transfer the consolidated cases to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, and close the Southern District of New York case.