Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04485/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04485-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

Case MDL No. 2915 Document 196 Filed 10/02/19 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

EV RE: CAPITAL ONE CUSTOMER

DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION

P. p\

OCT " 2 2019 yj

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA

MDL No. 2915

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in two actions move separately under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to

centralize this litigation. Movant in one action seeks centralization in the Western District of

Washington or, alternatively, the District of District of Columbia. Movants in five actions seek

centralization in the District of District of Columbia. Plaintiffs' motions include 21 actions pending

in 12 districts, as listed on Schedule A. The Panel also has been notified of 40 potentially-related

actions filed in 13 districts.^

The responding parties generally support centralization, though plaintiffs in one potential tagalong action oppose inclusion of their action in centralized proceedings. The remaining responding

plaintiffs variously support centralization in the Westem District of Washington, the District of

District of Columbia, the Eastem District of Virginia, and/or the Northern District of California.

Defendant GitHub, Inc. (GitHub) does not oppose centralization and does not have a preference as

to transferee district. The Capital One defendants^ and the AWS defendants^ support centralization

in the Eastem District of Virginia.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, we find that centralization under Section

1407 of all actions in the Eastem District of Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and

witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual

issues concerning a recently-announced incident in which an individual gained unauthorized access

Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton took no part in the decision of this matter.

Additionally, one or more Panel members who could be members of the putative classes in

this litigation have renounced their participation in these classes and have participated in this

decision.

' These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules

1.1(h), 7.1, and 7.2.

^ Capital One Financial Corporation, Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., and Capital One,

N.A.

Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc.

Case 3:19-cv-04485-JD Document 17 Filed 10/21/19 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:19-cv-04485-JD Document 17 Filed 10/21/19 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:19-cv-04485-JD Document 17 Filed 10/21/19 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:19-cv-04485-JD Document 17 Filed 10/21/19 Page 4 of 4