Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 21, 2023

Murray v. OneTouchPoint, Inc.

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:23-cv-00301
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Murray v. OneTouchPoint, Inc., Judge Liman granted the unopposed request to transfer the case to Wisconsin for coordination with related class actions.

Who this affects

Liam Murray, the proposed class, and OneTouchPoint, Inc.; the case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

What happened

Murray v. OneTouchPoint, Inc. is a proposed class action connected to an April 2022 data-security incident. OneTouchPoint asked to move the case from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and Liam Murray consented.

The court said the case could have been brought in Wisconsin and that transferring it served the parties and the public. Related class actions involving the same incident had been filed there and consolidated, so the cases could be handled together by one set of lawyers and one judge.

Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motion and directed the clerk to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Wisconsin and close Docket No. 9.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Murray v. OneTouchPoint, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-00301
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Feb. 21, 2023

Background

OneTouchPoint, Inc. moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer this proposed class action from the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The motion was made with Liam Murray’s consent, and the opinion states that there was no opposition.

The case arose from an April 2022 data-security incident. The court stated that it was one of fifteen class actions filed against OneTouchPoint in connection with that incident. It explained that related matters had been filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin and consolidated there, while another matter filed in the Southern District of Ohio had later been transferred to Wisconsin by agreement of the parties.

Legal standard

Section 1404(a) permits a federal court to transfer a civil action for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, when the case could have been brought in the proposed transferee court or all parties have consented. The court described a two-step inquiry: whether the action could have been brought in the new court, and whether private and public interests support transfer. Relevant considerations include the plaintiff’s choice of forum, witness convenience, access to documents and other proof, party convenience, where the important events occurred, the ability to compel unwilling witnesses, and the parties’ relative resources.

Court’s reasoning

The court found that all parties agreed the action could have been brought in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. It also concluded that transfer was in the interest of both the parties and the public because the related class actions arose from the same underlying incident. Transfer would allow those actions to be resolved in a single case, with one set of lawyers representing the same proposed class under the supervision of one district judge.

Disposition

The court granted the motion. It directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and to close Docket No. 9.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.