Home/S.D. New York/Quintero et al. v. Trustees of Columbia University; Holmes v. Trustees of Columbia University; Murray v. Trustees of Columbia University; McQueen v. Trustees of Columbia University; Daley v. Trustees of Columbia University; Hall v. Trustees of Columbia University; Sabedra v. Trustees of Columbia University; Nadeau v. Trustees of Columbia University; Babb v. Trustees of Columbia University; Linich et al v. Trustees of Columbia University

Quintero et al. v. Trustees of Columbia University; Holmes v. Trustees of Columbia University; Murray v. Trustees of Columbia University; McQueen v. Trustees of Columbia University; Daley v. Trustees of Columbia University; Hall v. Trustees of Columbia University; Sabedra v. Trustees of Columbia University; Nadeau v. Trustees of Columbia University; Babb v. Trustees of Columbia University; Linich et al v. Trustees of Columbia University

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedOctober 15, 2025
Docket1:25-cv-05541
StatusUnknown

This text of Quintero et al. v. Trustees of Columbia University; Holmes v. Trustees of Columbia University; Murray v. Trustees of Columbia University; McQueen v. Trustees of Columbia University; Daley v. Trustees of Columbia University; Hall v. Trustees of Columbia University; Sabedra v. Trustees of Columbia University; Nadeau v. Trustees of Columbia University; Babb v. Trustees of Columbia University; Linich et al v. Trustees of Columbia University (Quintero et al. v. Trustees of Columbia University; Holmes v. Trustees of Columbia University; Murray v. Trustees of Columbia University; McQueen v. Trustees of Columbia University; Daley v. Trustees of Columbia University; Hall v. Trustees of Columbia University; Sabedra v. Trustees of Columbia University; Nadeau v. Trustees of Columbia University; Babb v. Trustees of Columbia University; Linich et al v. Trustees of Columbia University) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Quintero et al. v. Trustees of Columbia University; Holmes v. Trustees of Columbia University; Murray v. Trustees of Columbia University; McQueen v. Trustees of Columbia University; Daley v. Trustees of Columbia University; Hall v. Trustees of Columbia University; Sabedra v. Trustees of Columbia University; Nadeau v. Trustees of Columbia University; Babb v. Trustees of Columbia University; Linich et al v. Trustees of Columbia University, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

poauss Application to consolidate DENIED. Oo ell See Order of September 29, 2025 (ECF 26). SO ORDERED. Raina Borrelli Dated: 10/8/2025 raina@straussborrelli.com straussborrelli.com 872.263.1100

September 25, 2025 A ews Lge / P. Kevin Castel M14 E-FILE United States District Judge Judge P. Kevin Castel Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St., Courtroom 11D New York, NY 10007-1312 Re: (1) Quintero et al. v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 1:25-cv-5541, filed on July 3, 2025; (2) Holmes v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 1:25-cv-6232, filed on July 29, 2025; (3) Murray v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 1:25-cv-6283, filed on July 30, 2025; (4) McQueen v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 1:25-cv-6622, filed on August 11, 2025; (5) Daley v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 1:25-cv-6665, filed on August 12, 2025; (6) Hall v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 1:25-cv-6664, filed on August 12, 2025; (7) Sabedra v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 1:25-cv-6698, filed on August 13, 2025; (8) Nadeau v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 1:25-cv-6720, filed on August 14, 2025; (9) Babb v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 1:25-cv-6745, filed on August 14, 2025; and (10) Linich et al v. Trustees of Columbia University, No. 1:25-cv-6928, filed on August 22, 2025 (collectively, the “Related Actions”). Dear Judge Castel, We write collectively on behalf of the Plaintiffs in the above referenced cases. Pursuant to Section 3.A. of the Court’s Individual Practices, Plaintiffs move to consolidate all of the actions pending in the Southern District of New York relating to the unauthorized access of Defendant Trustees of Columbia University’s (“Columbia”) network systems that Columbia issued notice of beginning on July 2, 2025 (“Data Breach.”). Plaintiffs request the Court consolidate the Related Actions, and all other class and/or representative actions (now and in the future) naming Columbia as a defendant in connection with the Data Breach, under Case No. 1:25-cv-5541. Plaintiffs have conferred with counsel for plaintiffs in each of the related actions and counsel for Defendant, and no party opposes the relief sought in this letter. The initial conference is currently scheduled for November 21, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. Currently, there are ten cases pending in this district relating to the Data Breach. All of the Related Actions name Columbia as a defendant and are listed above. FRCP 42(a) states, “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may: . . . consolidate the actions. . . .” “The trial court has broad discretion to consolidate actions under Rule 42(a), and cases may be consolidated even where certain defendants are named in only one of the complaints.” In re Fuwei Films Sec. Litig., 247 F.R.D.

Page 2

432, 435 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (internal citations omitted). The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has noted that “courts have taken the view that considerations of judicial economy favor consolidation.” Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1285 (2d Cir. 1990). The Related Actions share many common questions of law and fact. They arise from the same transaction or event—the Data Breach that exposed the personally identifiable information (“PII”) of current and former students, employees and applicants—and each seeks to represent a nationwide class of persons affected by the Data Breach. Additionally, the Related Actions raise common theories of recovery, as each complaint brings a claim of negligence against Columbia, argues Columbia violated its duty to protect the PII it collects and stores, and alleges Columbia owes damages to those affected by the Data Breach. Each of the Related Actions will also raise similar questions of fact because they all arise out of the same core nucleus of operative facts. Consolidation will serve the goals of judicial efficiency and avoidance of inconsistent verdicts by eliminating duplicative and overlapping litigation. Following consolidation, the Court will be able to address the factual and legal issues raised in the Related Actions in one proceeding rather than five, streamlining the resolution of each case. See Nomura Sec. Int’l, Inc. v. E*Trade Sec., Inc., 280 F. Supp. 2d 184, 204 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (“[P]arallel litigation of essentially the same fraud claim in two separate actions threatens not only wasteful duplication of effort, but also the prospect of inconsistent adjudications.”). Consolidating the Related Actions also precludes the possibility that the Related Actions may result in inconsistent verdicts. Consolidating the Related Actions will conserve judicial resources and ensure that there are no inconsistent results. Courts consistently find that overlapping data breach class actions are particularly appropriate for consolidation1. There is no reason to reach a different conclusion here. Consolidation of the Related Actions pursuant to FRCP 42(a) is warranted. Additionally, Plaintiffs request that the Court set the following schedule: Establish an application process, including deadlines for appointment of interim class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). Plaintiffs suggest that all applications be due within 14 days of an order consolidating cases with the application limited to 15 pages. Several Plaintiffs’ counsel believe a short, up to 5 pages, response brief to be filed within 7 business days of the opening briefs can be an aid to the Court.

1 See, e.g., Cook v. Legends Int'l, LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118950, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 18, 2025) (granting motion to consolidate data breach cases that “assert some of the same issues of fact and law, grow out of the same alleged data breach …, have many of the same claims, and have proposed class definitions that will encompass the same persons”); Rubenstein v. Scripps Health, No. 21cv1135-GPC(MSB), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192182, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2021) (granting motion to consolidate data breach cases that “involve the same underlying facts and substantially similar questions of law”); Kaplan v. 21st Century Oncology Holdings, No. 2:16-cv-210-FtM-99MRM, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105791, at *13 (M.D. Fla. July 21, 2016) (“[I]t is clear that common questions of law and fact permeate these cases [because] . . . all of the cases appear to arise from the same alleged data breach.”). Page 3

Deadline to file a consolidated complaint: within 45 days of an order appointing interim class counsel.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Raina C. Borrelli Raina C. Borrelli (Pro Hac Vice) STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 raina@straussborrelli.com

Jeffrey S. Goldenberg GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Tel: (513) 345-8291 jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

Charles E. Schaffer LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Tel: (215) 592-1500 cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

Brett R. Cohen LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, New York 11514 Tel: (516) 873-9550 bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com

Leanna A. Loginov (NY Bar No. 5894753) SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Tel: (305) 479-2299 Email: lloginov@shamisgentile.com Page 4

Paul J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

John E. Johnson and H/w Ann Marie Johnson v. The Celotex Corporation, Owens-Illinois, Inc.
899 F.2d 1281 (Second Circuit, 1990)
Nomura Securities International, Inc. v. ETrade Securities, Inc.
280 F. Supp. 2d 184 (S.D. New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Quintero et al. v. Trustees of Columbia University; Holmes v. Trustees of Columbia University; Murray v. Trustees of Columbia University; McQueen v. Trustees of Columbia University; Daley v. Trustees of Columbia University; Hall v. Trustees of Columbia University; Sabedra v. Trustees of Columbia University; Nadeau v. Trustees of Columbia University; Babb v. Trustees of Columbia University; Linich et al v. Trustees of Columbia University, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quintero-et-al-v-trustees-of-columbia-university-holmes-v-trustees-of-nysd-2025.