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 Advisory Group in connection with the alleged breach.

The parties jointly requested a stay while they pursued mediation. After the mediation did not result in a settlement, the court lifted the stay. The plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on November 21, 2025. Eisner Advisory Group then 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.

Legal Standard and Analysis

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404, which allows a federal district court to transfer a civil action for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court first determined whether the action could properly have been brought in Minnesota and then considered convenience and fairness factors.

The court found that venue was proper in the District of Minnesota. It stated that federal jurisdiction existed under the class-action jurisdiction 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 from 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 took place there.

The court concluded that the relevant transfer factors strongly favored Minnesota. The plaintiffs’ choice of the New York forum received little weight because this was a nationwide proposed class action, none of the named plaintiffs resided in New York, and all named plaintiffs did not oppose the transfer. Minnesota was the location of the events underlying the claims, and most likely witnesses were located there. The court also found that the location of relevant documents, party convenience, and the ability to require witnesses to attend court favored transfer. The parties’ relative financial resources were neutral because the record did not resolve that issue. The interests of justice also favored transfer because of the case’s strong connection to Minnesota and another action involving the same facts pending there.

Disposition

The court granted the defendant’s motion to transfer. It 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 in the Southern District of New York.