Epiq Seeks Removal of Data Breach Class Action to Federal Court
The original class action suit alleging California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) violations was filed in California state court, stemming from the February ransomware attack that caused Epiq to shutdown its client-facing systems for weeks.
July 30, 2020 at 12:47 PM
4 minute read
On Wednesday, Epiq filed a notice to remove a class action lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, as first reported by Legal Radar. The filing stemmed from a May suit in California state court alleging damages after Epiq's February ransomware attacks.
On May 26, Irvine, California-based Benjamin Karter filed a California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) violation class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, Orange County.
Karter alleged information stolen from Epiq's networks included nonencrypted and unredacted personal information and that Epiq failed to satisfy its duty to implement reasonable security procedures and practices as required by CCPA. Karter also claimed his Social Security number was on Epiq's network during the late February breach, which caused Epiq to shut down its systems for weeks.
While Karter was the only named plaintiff listed on his original filing and Epiq's notice of removal, Karter defined his class as all California residents whose unredacted and unencrypted personal information was compromised in the data breach affecting Epiq's networks in 2020.
Karter seeks statutory damages between $100-$750 per class member for each CCPA violation or actual damages, whichever is greater. Karter also requested injunctive or declaratory relief and other relief the court deems "proper."
As a result of Epiq's February data breach, Karter alleged he and his class "face a lifetime risk of identity theft."
In its notice of removal, Epiq wrote it maintains data from over 50,000 California residents. As a result, applying the minimum statutory damages sought by Karter would exceed $5 million, Epiq said.
While Epiq denies all of Karter's allegations, the e-discovery and managed services provider argued removal to federal court was appropriate under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).
Under CAFA, proposed classes must have at least 100 members, and while Karter wrote the exact number of class members was "unknown," Epiq argued the class would exceed 50,000. Secondly, CAFA requires that any one member of the proposed class be a citizen of a state different from any defendant. Epiq noted Karter is a California resident and Epiq is a Missouri-corporation based in New York. Thus, the diversity of citizenship required for removal to federal court is met, the company wrote.
Finally, Epiq said the aggregate amount in controversy must exceed $5 million for removal to federal court under CAFA. According to Epiq's filing, Karter's alleged liability and damage sought would exceed $5 million.
In a statement provided to Legaltech News, Epiq denied all of Karter's claims.
"We can state with confidence, based upon our own investigation as well as a complete forensic investigation and verification by our third-party consultant, Mandiant, that all allegations, including the allegation of any data exfiltration and including that of Mr. Karter's, during the event in February 2020 are baseless and without merit."
Karter's Aftergood Law Firm and Woodrow & Peluso counsel have not responded to request for comment.
|Sign up for Law.com's Legal Radar to keep up with the latest news and lawsuits in a free, personalized news feed. Track technology litigation and who's getting the work by industry, practice area, law firm, company and region.
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 AllBaker McKenzie Taps Associate, IBM Watson's Brian Kuhn to Lead AI Transformation Team
4 minute readConsilio and Xact Data Discovery Announce Merger, With Eye on Broader Legal Services Expansion
4 minute read'Viewed as a Success': Florida Supreme Court Sets Second Round of Virtual Arguments
4 minute readNew to Law.com's Legal Radar: Cybersecurity Is Now Available in Your Personalized News Feed
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
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