Florida Litigators File to Consolidate Marriott Data Breach Litigation in Miami
A hearing with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate cases from around the country is scheduled for Jan. 31 in Miami.
January 16, 2019 at 03:07 PM
4 minute read
Attorneys handling the fallout from from the Marriott International data breach have moved to consolidate the litigation in Miami.
Litigators from three firms — Colson Hicks Eidson, Podhurst Orseck and Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton — have filed a brief to consolidate suits over Marriott's handling of a hack that affected up to 500 million records and left customers vulnerable to thieves and fraudulent activity. The brief argues that Miami, rather than the hotel chain's headquarters in Maryland, is a more appropriate venue for courtroom proceedings on the matter.
“All three firms independently saw the strength and appropriateness of Miami as a forum for the consolidated lawsuits,” said Colson Hicks Eidson partner Francisco “Frank” Maderal, who cited a history of collaboration between the firms, as well as the Southern District of Florida's experience with this area of litigation.
Read the brief:
“Our judges probably have more experience with identity theft than any, because federal prosecutors have chosen Miami as the epicenter for a DOJ cybercrime taskforce,” Maderal said. “Further, Miami has the strongest nexus to the victims, whether they reside in Florida or stayed in a Starwood Hotel here. Given our population and tourism industry, South Florida is truly the epicenter of this breach.”
The attorney also stated the possibility of trying the case in Maryland “made no sense” to him and other litigators.
“For starters, the breach occurred from Starwood's servers, which during the relevant period were never in Maryland,” Maderal said. “It just isn't a benefit to the victims of this data breach to have to litigate their claims in a multi-national corporation's hometown.”
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation will hear their proposition Jan. 31, with Podhurst Orseck attorney Peter Prieto presenting.
Even as the attorneys prepare for the hearing, new complaints are emerging against Marriott in federal court in Florida. A class action lawsuit critical of the company's handling of the data breach was filed in Miami on Tuesday. The complaint, filed by Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton litigator Detra Shaw-Wilder on behalf of plaintiff Lisa Axelrod, alleges negligence, unjust enrichment and a violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
“Marriott did not just lose people's names, addresses, account information and payment card information, it also lost highly secure information such as passport numbers, trip dates and dates of birth,” the suit said. “This is the precise sort of non-traditional public information that is used by banks and other consumer companies to verify identities, meaning the loss of this information will make it much more likely that Marriott customers will be subject to identity fraud, costing them thousands of dollars in remediation efforts and countless hours of their personal time.”
The suit contends Marriott not only failed to protect the private information of its customers, but further erred by “failing to promptly, timely, clearly, accurately, and completely inform” Axelrod and a proposed nationwide class of plaintiffs that their personal and financial information had been stolen.
Along with Axelrod, the lawsuit would include “all persons in the United States whose personal and financial information was compromised as a result of the data breach” that Marriott first disclosed Nov. 30. A subclass would comprise of “all members of the nationwide class who are residents of Florida.”
Read the complaint:
Meanwhile, Axelrod, a Florida resident, claimed she noticed “suspicious activity” on her credit report.
A representative for Marriott said the company is not commenting on the litigation.
Shaw-Wilder did not respond to requests for comment by deadline. The lawsuit also names Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro litigators Thomas Loeser and Shelby Smith as attorneys for the plaintiff and proposed class. The Seattle-based lawyers also did not respond to inquires by press time.
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Families Settle Court Battle Over Who Owns Parkland Killer's Name, Likeness
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250