In re Christie's Data Breach Litigation

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: December 18, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-04221
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : IN RE CHRISTIE’S DATA BREACH LITIGATION, : : 24-CV-4221 (JMF) This Document Relates To: : All Member Cases : ORDER : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: This Court has an obligation to assure itself of Plaintiffs’ standing under Article III. See, e.g., Frank v. Gaos, 586 U.S. 485, 492 (2019). Notably, “[t]hat obligation extends to court approval of proposed class action settlements” because “[a] court is powerless to approve a proposed class settlement if it lacks jurisdiction over the dispute, and federal courts lack jurisdiction if no named plaintiff has standing.” Id.; see Steven v. Carlos Lopez & Assocs., LLC, 422 F. Supp. 3d 801, 803 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (Furman, J.) (denying approval of a class action settlement on the ground that the plaintiffs lacked standing), aff’d sub nom. McMorris v. Carlos Lopez & Assocs., LLC, 995 F.3d 295 (2d Cir. 2021); see also Cooper v. Bonobos, Inc., No. 21- CV-854 (JMF), 2022 WL 170622 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2022) (Furman, J.) (dismissing claims arising from a data breach on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing). In light of the foregoing and Defendant’s earlier motion to dismiss for lack of standing, see ECF No. 44; ECF No. 45, at 7-15, Plaintiffs shall, no later than January 9, 2025, file a supplemental memorandum of law, not to exceed twenty pages, addressing the question of standing. In addition, Plaintiffs should address the following: • The import, if any, of the absence of relief in the proposed settlement for the State Subclasses alleged in the First Amended Complaint, see ECF No. 43, ¶¶ 159-62; • Why the Class is limited in the Settlement Agreement to “all persons residing in the United States whose Private Information was compromised as a result of the Data Breach and who were sent notice of the Data Breach,” ECF No. 49-1, ¶ 2 (emphasis added); see also id. 62, when the First Amended Complaint defines the Nationwide Class and the State Subclasses as “[a]ll individuals . . . whose Private Information was accessed and/or acquired in the Data Breach discovered by Defendant in May 2024, including” — but presumably not limited to — “all those individuals who received notice of the Data Breach,” ECF No. 43, 158 (emphasis added); see also id. J§ 159-62. e Assuming the Class is limited to those who already received notice of the breach — and thus, the members of the Class are known — whether the settlement could or should be structured to provide payments to all Class members rather than only those who submit claims — that is, whether the settlement needs to be a claims-made settlement; e Whether the Court can or should require electronic notice to Class members in a manner that would enable the Class members to use a link to submit a claim and/or request payment through platforms such as Zelle, Venmo, or Paypal; and e Why the Court should enjoin and stay “any actions brought by Settlement Class Members” (other than the named Plaintiffs) “concerning the Released Claims . . . pending Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement,” ECF No. 49-3, 4 16. No later than the same date, Plaintiffs shall file a declaration from each Class Representative describing, with specificity, what “assist[ance]” he or she provided with respect to “the investigation of the case.” ECF No. 49-2, 7 8. No later than January 16, 2025, Defendant shall file a memorandum of law responding to Plaintiffs’ submissions, not to exceed ten pages, indicating, in particular, whether it agrees or disagrees with Plaintiffs’ position on the issue of standing and briefly explaining its position. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 18, 2024 New York, New York JESSE MAN Uyited States District Judge