Class Actions Over Data Breach Involving Quest Diagnostics Sent to New Jersey
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred more than 40 class actions brought over a data breach at American Medical Collection Agency Inc. that impacted 20 million people.
July 31, 2019 at 06:57 PM
4 minute read
A federal judicial panel has transferred more than 40 class actions involving a data breach that ensnared Quest Diagnostics to New Jersey, near the headquarters of the medical testing company.
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the transfer Wednesday of all the lawsuits, brought over a breach of data at American Medical Collection Agency Inc., a billing collection service. The breach compromised the private information of more than 20 million people, including 11.9 million patients at Quest Diagnostics Inc. and 7.7 million at Laboratory Corp. of America, based in Burlington, North Carolina.
In its order, the panel transferred the cases to U.S. District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the District of New Jersey. Quest Diagnostics, Laboratory Corp. of America and two other companies named as defendants in the lawsuits, New Jersey’s Bio-Reference Laboratories Inc. and UnitedHealth Group’s Optum360 Services Inc., a Quest billing contractor in Minnesota, had supported the New Jersey venue and Arleo. American Medical Collection Agency, based in Elmsford, New York, did not appear before the MDL and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy June 17.
“All defendants and plaintiffs in over a dozen actions support this district, where four actions on the motion and seven potential tag-along actions are pending,” wrote MDL panel Chairwoman Sarah Vance. “Defendants Quest and Bio-Reference have their headquarters there, and AMCA is located nearby in Elmsford, New York. Thus, common documents and witnesses likely will be located in or near this district.”
Quest Diagnostics attorney David Hoffman of Sidley Austin and Allison Holt Ryan of Hogan Lovells, a lawyer for Laboratory Corp. of America, did not respond to requests for comment. Bio-Reference attorney Paul Karlsgodt of Baker & Hostetler and Kristine McAlister Brown of Alston & Bird, for Optum360, also did not respond, nor did a representative of American Medical Collection Agency.
Plaintiffs attorneys Linda Nussbaum of New York’s Nussbaum Law Group and Chris Seeger of Seeger Weiss had moved to transfer the cases to New Jersey last month.
“The panel decision was very well reasoned and there are efficiencies to be had by transferring all of the cases to J[udge] Arleo, who is an experienced and creative judge who is very well suited to organize and preside over these important cases,” wrote Nussbaum in an email.
A competing plaintiffs attorney, Tina Wolfson of Ahdoot & Wolfson, had moved to transfer the cases to the Southern District of New York, while others pushed for the Central District of California.
In an unusually detailed order, the panel rejected an attempt from some plaintiffs attorneys to create multiple MDLs based on various laboratories.
“In many situations,” Vance wrote for the panel, “we are hesitant to bring together actions involving competing defendants, but when, as here, the actions stem from the same data breach, and there is significant overlap in the central factual issues, parties, proposed classes, and claims, we find that creation of a single MDL is warranted.”
The lawsuits followed Quest Diagnostics’ June 3 announcement of the breach, which compromised financial data, Social Security numbers and medical information. Attorneys general in Connecticut and Illinois have opened investigations into the breach, which now involves hundreds of thousands more customers of several more medical companies.
Separately, on Wednesday, the MDL panel sent two groups of cases to U.S. District Judge Leonard Stark of the District of Delaware. One MDL involves half a dozen patent infringement cases that Keryx Biopharmaceuticals Inc. brought over generic Auryxia, used to treat chronic kidney disease. The other MDL is comprised of five antitrust class actions focused on another drug used to treat chronic kidney disease: Amgen’s Sensipar.
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 AllSocial Media Policy for Judges Provides Guidance in a Changing World
3 minute readBank of America's Cash Sweep Program Attracts New Legal Fire in Class Action
3 minute read'Something Really Bad Happened': J&J's Talc Bankruptcy Vote Under Attack
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
- 2Foreign-Company Lobbyists Would Need to Register Under Proposed DOJ Regulation
- 3'Fancy Dress': ERISA Claim Accuses Plan Administrator and Cigna Affiliates of Co-Pay Maximizer Scheme
- 4The American Lawyer's Top Stories of 2024
- 5Semiconductor Component Maker Accused of Deceiving Investors About Market Downturn, Export Curbs
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