Transfer Order, In re Coinbase Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 3153 (Doc. 68)
Document text
Research, not advice. Part of the Bitcoin research archive (October 2026). Claims labelled unverified, contested or fringe are reported, not endorsed; statuses of bills and rules are as of the date checked. Government, court and patent records are public domain; the research notes are CC BY 4.0.
Case MDL No. 3153 Document 68 Filed 08/07/25 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: COINBASE CUSTOMER
DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION MDL No. 3153
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel: * Plaintiff in the Northern District of California Shakib action listed on
Schedule A moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of
California. This litigation consists of eleven actions pending in four districts, as listed on Schedule
A. In addition, the parties have informed the Panel of eight actions pending in three districts. 1
Defendants Coinbase, Inc., and Coinbase Global, Inc. (collectively, Coinbase), and
responding plaintiffs in seven actions and two potential tag-along actions support centralization,
but they differ as to the transferee district. Coinbase, plaintiffs in the Southern District of New
York Scheuber, Panthaki, McAfee, and Bender actions, and plaintiff in the Southern District of
New York Ramo potential tag-along action support centralization in the Southern District of New
York. Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California Belian action, the Central District of
California Eisenberg action, the Western District of Washington Quito action, and the Northern
District of California Gonzalez potential tag-along action support centralization in the Northern
District of California. TaskUs, Inc., a defendant in the Southern District of New York Estrada
potential tag-along action, opposes inclusion of Estrada in any MDL and, alternatively, supports
centralization in the Southern District of New York.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions
involve common questions of fact and that centralization in the Southern District of New York
will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct
of this litigation. Plaintiffs are customers of Coinbase, one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency
exchanges. They all allege that their personally identifiable information, such as names, addresses,
phone numbers, email addresses, partial Social Security numbers, masked bank account numbers,
government-issued ID images, and account data, was compromised during a cybersecurity incident
affecting Coinbase. The actions raise common questions of fact, such as how and when the breach
occurred, the sufficiency of Coinbase’s data security practices, how and when Coinbase notified
breach victims, and the nature of the alleged damages.
* Judge Roger T. Benitez did not participate in the decision of this matter. Additionally, one or
more Panel members who could be members of the putative classes in this litigation have
renounced their participation in these classes and participated in this decision.
1
These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1,
and 7.2.
Case MDL No. 3153 Document 68 Filed 08/07/25 Page 2 of 3
-2-
The Southern District of New York is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation.
Four actions and four potential tag-along actions are pending in the district. Coinbase maintains
corporate offices in New York and has a major data center in nearby Secaucus, New Jersey. Thus,
relevant witnesses and documents may be in or near the Southern District of New York. We assign
the litigation to Judge Edgardo Ramos, who we are confident will steer this litigation on a prudent
and expeditious course. Because we are centralizing the litigation in the Southern District of New
York, we need not determine whether to include the Southern District of New York Estrada
potential tag-along action in the MDL. Instead, the transferee judge can determine whether the
factual overlap between Estrada and the centralized actions merits reassigning Estrada to him.
See Panel Rule 7.2(a) (“Potential tag-along actions filed in the transferee district do not require
Panel action. A party should request assignment of such actions to the Section 1407 transferee
judge in accordance with applicable local rules.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the
Southern District of New York are transferred to the Southern District of New York and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Edgardo Ramos for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Karen K. Caldwell
Chair
Nathaniel M. Gorton Matthew F. Kennelly
David C. Norton Dale A. Kimball
Madeline Cox Arleo
Case MDL No. 3153 Document 68 Filed 08/07/25 Page 3 of 3
IN RE: COINBASE CUSTOMER
DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION MDL No. 3153
SCHEDULE A
Central District of California
EISENBERG v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−04460
Northern District of California
BELIAN v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−04171
SHAKIB v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−04207
ORTIZ v. COINBASE, INC., C.A. No. 3:25−04235
NEU, ET AL. v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−04243
SQUEO, ET AL. v. COINBASE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:25−04254
Southern District of New York
PANTHAKI, ET AL. v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−04094
MCAFEE v. COINBASE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−04137
BENDER v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−04148
SCHEUBER v. COINBASE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:25−04151
Western District of Washington
QUITO v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:25−00940