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 cases in the Southern District of New York between April 11 and April 15, 2025. The court later consolidated those cases and any other related cases naming the defendant in connection with the alleged breach.

The parties temporarily stayed the case while they pursued mediation, but they did not reach a settlement. The plaintiffs then filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The defendant moved to transfer the consolidated action to the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. The plaintiffs filed a notice stating that they did not oppose the motion.

Legal standard and analysis

Section 1404 permits a federal district court to transfer a civil case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, when the case could have been brought in the receiving district or all parties consent. Courts generally first determine whether venue is proper in the receiving district and then weigh convenience and justice factors.

The court held that venue was proper 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 that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Minnesota because the data breach and related activities occurred there.

The court concluded that the relevant transfer factors strongly favored Minnesota. The plaintiffs’ choice of New York received little weight because they brought a nationwide proposed class action, none of the named plaintiffs lived in New York, and all named plaintiffs said they did not oppose transfer. Minnesota was the location of the events underlying the claims, and most likely witnesses—people whose work related to the breach—were located there. The locations of relevant documents, the parties’ convenience, and the availability of legal process to require witnesses to attend also favored transfer. The parties’ relative financial means were neutral because the existing record did not resolve that factor.

The court also determined that the interests of justice favored transfer because the case had a strong connection to Minnesota and another action based on the same facts was pending in the District of Minnesota.

Disposition

Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted the defendant’s motion to transfer. The Clerk was directed to transfer the consolidated cases to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota and close this case. The opinion does not state that the transfer motion was granted with or without prejudice.