Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-md-02617/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-md-02617-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: ANTHEM, INC., CUSTOMER DATA 

SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION MDL No. 2617

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Plaintiffs in the action listed on Schedule A (Smilow) move under Panel *

Rule 7.1 to vacate our order that conditionally transferred Smilow to the Northern District of

California for inclusion in MDL No. 2617. Defendants Anthem, Inc., Anthem Life & Disability

Insurance Company, Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc., and Empire HealthChoice HMO, Inc.

(collectively, Anthem) oppose the motion to vacate. 

Plaintiffs base their arguments against transfer primarily on the pendency of a motion to

remand the action to state court, suggesting that the transferor court should decide this motion. We

have held repeatedly, however, that a motion for remand alone is generally an insufficient basis to

vacate a conditional transfer order. Plaintiffs can present their motion for remand to the transferee 1

judge. See, e.g., In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir. 1990); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales

Practices Litig., 170 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L. 2001). 

2

Plaintiffs also argue that transfer should not take place because Smilow involves “localized”

Certain 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.

Panel Rule 2.1(d) expressly provides that the pendency of a conditional transfer order does 1

not limit the pretrial jurisdiction of the court in which the subject action is pending. Between the

date a remand motion is filed and the date that transfer of the action to the MDL is finalized, a court

generally has adequate time to rule on a remand motion if it chooses to do so. 

Plaintiffs alternatively request that the Panel simultaneously separate and remand their 2

pending motion to remand to the transferor court. Section 1407(a), though, provides for separation

and remand of “any claim, cross-claim, counter-claim, or third party claim.” The statute does not

authorize separation and remand of individual motions. Cf. In re Bank of Am., N.A., Mortg. Corp.

Force-Placed Hazard Ins. Litig., 959 F. Supp. 2d 1365, 1366-67 (J.P.M.L. 2013) (rejecting request

to separate and remand a subset of hazard insurance issues from each of the individual claims pled

in complaint). Accordingly, we deny plaintiffs’ alternative request.

Case 5:15-md-02617-LHK Document 304 Filed 10/13/15 Page 1 of 3 Case MDL No. 2617 Document 336 Filed 10/13/15 Page 1 of 3
-2-

claims, facts, and parties. This argument, too, is unconvincing. Plaintiffs’ claims, like those in the

actions pending in MDL No. 2617, arise from a data security breach that allegedly occurred

sometime between December 10, 2014, and February 4, 2015 (the Anthem data breach), and resulted

in the electronic theft of personally identifiable information and personal health information of, by

one estimate, some 80 million current and former health insurance plan members and employees of

Anthem or its affiliated health insurance companies. Smilow thus will involve similar, if not

identical, discovery relating to the Anthem data breach. Moreover, the putative class asserted by

plaintiffs in Smilow overlaps significantly with the putative classes asserted in the actions in the

MDL. Absent transfer, there will be a significant risk of inconsistent pretrial rulings. 

In our order centralizing this litigation, we held that the Northern District of California was

an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising from the Anthem

data breach. See In re Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., MDL No. 2617, __ F. Supp.

3d __, 2015 WL3654627 (J.P.M.L. Jun. 8, 2015). We find that Smilowshares factual questions with

those actions, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and

witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action listed on Schedule A is transferred to the

Northern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Lucy

H. Koh for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

__________________________________________

 Sarah S. Vance 

 Chair

Marjorie O. Rendell Charles R. Breyer

Lewis A. Kaplan Ellen Segal Huvelle

R. David Proctor Catherine D. Perry

Case 5:15-md-02617-LHK Document 304 Filed 10/13/15 Page 2 of 3 Case MDL No. 2617 Document 336 Filed 10/13/15 Page 2 of 3
IN RE: ANTHEM, INC., CUSTOMER DATA 

SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION MDL No. 2617

SCHEDULE A

Eastern District of New York

SMILOW, ET AL. v. ANTHEM LIFE & DISABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY,

ET AL., C.A. No. 1:15-02380

Case 5:15-md-02617-LHK Document 304 Filed 10/13/15 Page 3 of 3 Case MDL No. 2617 Document 336 Filed 10/13/15 Page 3 of 3