Carver v. Campus

Background

Five plaintiffs—Jamie Stieve, Walter Hall, Tiffany Clark, Virginia Carver, and Cassie Helgeson—filed separate proposed class actions against Infinite Campus, Inc. The cases concern an alleged data breach involving Infinite Campus’s servers that occurred on or around March 18, 2026. Each plaintiff alleged similar causes of action based on the same event and sought to represent the same group of individuals.

Infinite Campus did not oppose the motions to consolidate or to appoint interim co-lead counsel. It expressly reserved its rights, defenses, objections, and arguments concerning the allegations, including the right to seek dismissal and oppose class certification.

Consolidation

Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, the court concluded that the cases shared common questions of law and fact because they arose from the same alleged data breach, involved overlapping causes of action, and sought to represent the same class of individuals. The court therefore granted the motions to consolidate.

The order consolidated Hall v. Infinite Campus, Inc., No. 26-cv-2046; Clark v. Infinite Campus, Inc., No. 26-cv-2051; Carver v. Infinite Campus, Inc., No. 26-cv-2191; and Helgeson v. Infinite Campus, Inc., No. 26-cv-2306 with Stieve v. Infinite Campus, Inc., No. 26-cv-2042. Stieve, as the first-filed case, became the lead case. Future pleadings, motions, and other documents must be filed in the Stieve case. The plaintiffs must file a consolidated amended complaint within 21 days of the order’s date. After that filing, the other four cases will be administratively closed. The order also applies to later-filed proposed class actions involving similar factual allegations and causes of action related to the alleged data breach.

Interim Co-Lead Counsel

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), a court may appoint interim counsel to represent a proposed class before deciding whether to certify the case as a class action. The court found appointment appropriate because the litigation allegedly involved more than one million affected individuals and because the proposed lawyers represented that they would work cooperatively and efficiently. The court also relied on their stated experience with nationwide consumer class actions and data-breach cases and their available resources.

The court granted the motions to appoint Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA and David A. Goodwin of Gustafson Gluek PLLC as interim co-lead class counsel. Their assigned responsibilities include coordinating plaintiffs’ lawyers, organizing litigation work, communicating with the court and Infinite Campus, presenting plaintiffs’ positions, managing filings and hearings, coordinating settlement discussions, consulting experts, preparing status reports, and developing procedures concerning attorneys’ fees and expenses subject to court approval.

Disposition

Judge Laura M. Provinzino granted the motions to consolidate the five actions and granted the motions to appoint interim co-lead counsel. The order concerned consolidation and litigation management. It did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims or whether a class should ultimately be certified.