SuperValu Data Breach Plaintiffs Fight Consolidation of Class Action Lawsuits

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A group of plaintiffs represented in two separate data breach class action lawsuits against SuperValu Inc. have petitioned a federal panel to not centralize these two proposed class action lawsuits into larger multidistrict litigation (MDL) against the popular retailer, claiming that such an action would be unnecessary for the relatively small number of claims. The SuperValu data breach lawsuits allege the popular grocery chain failed to properly secure and protect their stores’ credit card processing systems from possible data breach incidences.

SuperValu has asked the same U.S. judicial panel to consolidate these two data breach class action lawsuits into the national MDL. However, in early October, the plaintiffs in both cases filed an opposing motion, stating, “This panel has frequently recognized that creation of a multidistrict litigation proceeding is undesirable when the small number of actions sought to be consolidated may be easily coordinated without resort to formal centralization. Since there are only two actions pending, [SuperValu] has the heavier burden of demonstrating need for centralization, which it hasn’t done.”

Additionally, the plaintiffs reason that SuperValu’s preferred litigation forum in Idaho is too inconvenient for the plaintiffs to readily access for court hearings.

The first of the two proposed SuperValu class action lawsuits was filed by plaintiff Steve McPeak and a number of other named plaintiffs who uniformly allege SuperValu neglected to take full precautions in order to protect their customer’s private information. They also claim the grocery retailer failed to inform customers of known breaches in a timely manner after the data breach allegedly occurred.

The other SuperValu data breach class action lawsuit filed by plaintiff Kenneth Hanff and for other co-plaintiffs similarly alleges the grocery stores failure to properly safeguard consumers’ financial information and that SuperValu did not comply with industry data safety standards.

While SuperValu is still fighting for the centralization of these two data breach class action lawsuits, the retailer also argues that there are other legal tools and options to avoid duplicate results or verdicts and has suggested that one of these data breach lawsuits stay pending the outcome of the other class action lawsuit.

However, the McPeak plaintiffs disagree and claim, “Given the small number of parties and attorneys to these two actions, there is no reason to believe that some or all of these alternatives are impractical or unavailable here.” The plaintiffs further allege that SuperValu’s preferred MDL location in Idaho is the least logical place to hold this data breach litigation, as all McPeak plaintiffs and legal witnesses reside in wither Illinois or its neighboring state Missouri.

Similarly, the Hanff plaintiffs all reside in Missouri and have filed for their data breach class action lawsuit to take place in Minnesota federal court where SuperValu is headquartered. Aside from the fact that Missouri is closer geographically to Minnesota than Idaho, the Hanff plaintiffs claim this venue would be most convenient for the plaintiffs, the defendants, and the key witnesses who live and work in Minnesota.

Steve McPeak is represented by John J. Driscoll of The Driscoll Firm PC.

Kenneth Hanff is represented by Rhett A. McSweeney and David M. Langevin of McSweeney Langevin LLC, Ben Barnow, Erich P. Schork and Jeffrey Blake of Barnow & Associates PC and John S. Steward of Steward Law Firm LLC.

The SuperValu Data Breach Class Action Lawsuits are McPeak, et al. v. Supervalu Inc., Case No.  3:14-cv-00899, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois and Hanff, et al. v SuperValu Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-03252, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.