Woodard v. Boeing Employees Credit Union et al, No. 2:2023cv00033 - Document 47 (W.D. Wash. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER granting Defendant's 29 Motion for Leave for Limited Intervention to Transfer or Stay Action. Smith is GRANTED limited intervention pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(b). Woodard's case and all pending motions are TRANSFERRED to the District of Oregon. Signed by Judge Jamal N Whitehead. (SB)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Woodard v. Boeing Employees Credit Union et al Doc. 47 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 9 NOEL WOODARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 10 11 12 CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00033 ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO DISTRICT OF OREGON BOEING EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION, KAYE-SMITH ENTERPRISES INC, and DOES 1-100, Defendants. 13 14 Plaintiff Noel Woodard filed this putative class action against Defendants Boeing 15 Employees’ Credit Union (“BECU”) and Kaye-Smith Enterprises on October 26, 2022, alleging 16 damages caused by a data breach and unauthorized access to her personally identifiable 17 information. Some 20 days earlier, Richard Smith filed a putative class action against Kaye- 18 Smith stemming from the same data breach in U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in 19 Smith et. al. v. Kaye-Smith Enters., Inc., 3:22-cv-01499-AR (D. Or.) (referenced here as the 20 “Smith Lawsuit”). 21 Smith now moves for limited intervention in this action, arguing Woodard’s case should 22 be stayed or transferred to the District of Oregon under the “first-to-file rule,” which permits 23 district courts to decline jurisdiction over an action when a complaint involving essentially the 24 -1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 same parties and issues has already been filed in another district. Smith makes a good point, and 2 for the reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS his motion and transfers this action to the 3 District of Oregon. BACKGROUND 4 5 BECU’s printing vendor, Kaye-Smith, experienced a data breach in June 2022 that 6 affected thousands of BECU customers. BECU notified its customers, like Woodard and Smith, 7 of the data breach. Woodard and Smith each filed a putative class action on behalf of themselves 8 and other BECU members who were impacted by the June 2022 data breach incident involving 9 data stored by Kaye-Smith. Smith and Woodard had both previously filed putative class actions 10 against BECU for the same incident that they voluntarily dismissed. See Smith v. Boeing Emps.’ 11 Credit Union, Case No. 2:22-cv-1234 (W. Dist. Wash.), ECF No. 20; Woodard v. Boeing Emps.’ 12 Credit Union, Case No. 2:22-cv-1093 (W.D. Wash.), ECF No. 15. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 On October 6, 2022, Smith filed his current action against Kaye-Smith Enterprises in the District of Oregon, on behalf of a nation-wide class of impacted individuals. Smith Lawsuit, Dkt. No. 1. Smith defined the proposed class as follows: All persons residing in the United States whose personally identifiable information Kaye-Smith obtained, stored, and/or shared and which was exposed to an unauthorized party as the result of the data breach referenced in BECU’s correspondence to Plaintiff Smith dated July 25, 2022. Smith Lawsuit, Dkt. No. 1 at 17. On October 26, 2022. Woodard filed this action against both BECU and Kaye-Smith Enterprises, on behalf of a class of individuals residing in the State of Washington. Dkt. No. 1. Woodard defines her proposed like this: All individuals within the State of Washington whose PII and/or financial information was exposed to unauthorized third-parties as a result of the data breach reference in BECU’s letter to Plaintiff Woodard dated July 25, 2022. 24 ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO DISTRICT OF OREGON - 2 1 2 3 4 Dkt. No. 1-1 at 7. On January 6, 2023, Magistrate Judge Armistead for the District of Oregon appointed Smith’s counsel as interim class counsel in the Smith Lawsuit. Smith Lawsuit, Dkt. No. 28. On April 13, 2023, Smith moved to intervene and to transfer or stay this action. Dkt. No. 5 29. Defendant Kaye-Smith does not oppose the motion. Dkt. No. 33. But Woodard opposes 6 Smith’s request. Dkt. No. 34. And so does Defendant BECU. Dkt. No. 35. DISCUSSION 7 8 Smith argues that he has a right to intervene in the Woodard case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 24(a)(2) or, in the alternative, that he should be granted permissive intervention under Fed. R. Civ. 10 P. 24(b)(1). 11 I. Limited intervention. 12 A. Intervention as a matter of right. 13 A nonparty has a right to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2) “when it (i) timely moves to 14 intervene; (ii) has a significantly protectable interest related to the subject of the action; (iii) may 15 have that interest impaired by the disposition of the action; and (iv) will not be adequately 16 represented by existing parties.” W. Watersheds Project v. Haaland, 22 F.4th 828, 835 (9th Cir. 17 2022). “In determining whether intervention is appropriate, courts are guided primarily by 18 practical and equitable considerations, and the requirements for intervention are broadly 19 interpreted in favor of intervention.” United States v. Aerojet Gen. Corp., 606 F.3d 1142, 1148 20 (9th Cir. 2010). The proposed intervenor bears the burden of showing that all requirements have 21 been met. United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 2004). The 22 application for intervention as of right cannot be granted if even one of these elements is not met. 23 League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997). 24 ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO DISTRICT OF OREGON - 3 1 The Court need not analyze each element because it finds that Smith does not satisfy the 2 third and fourth factors. Under the third factor for intervention as a matter of right, the proposed 3 intervenor “must be situated such that the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, 4 impair or impede its ability to protect its interests.” United States v. Aerojet Gen. Corp., 606 F.3d 5 1142, 1151–52 (9th Cir. 2010). 6 Woodard argues that even if Smith has a protectable interest in the action, he does not 7 need to intervene to protect his interest. She asserts that he has other options to protect his 8 interests, such as filing a motion for consolidation or objecting to a settlement. The Court agrees. 9 Smith’s interests will not be impaired absent intervention. If the parties reach a class action 10 settlement, Smith may raise any concerns as an objector. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(5) (“Any class 11 member may object to the proposal if it requires court approval….”). The Court will hear his 12 objections at that time. Moreover, before a district court approves a proposed class action 13 settlement, the court must conclude that the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate” and 14 that the plaintiffs and class counsel have “adequately represented the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 23(e)(2). So there is another mechanism built into the class action procedure to protect Smith’s 16 interests. 17 Under the fourth factor—whether the proposed intervenor would be represented 18 adequately by the existing parties—courts consider whether “(1) the interests of the existing 19 parties are such that they would undoubtedly make all of the non-party’s arguments; (2) the 20 existing parties are capable of and willing to make such arguments; and (3) the non-party would 21 offer no necessary element to the proceeding that existing parties would neglect.” Sw. Ctr. for 22 Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 150 F.3d 1152, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 1998). 23 24 Here, Smith and Woodard have filed substantially similar actions against Kaye-Smith seeking similar relief. Indeed, Smith falls within the class definition proposed by Woodard and ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO DISTRICT OF OREGON - 4 1 they have the same interests in the outcome of any action against Kaye-Smith. Smith fails to 2 point to a specific and distinct difference in interests. See Citizens for Balanced Use v. Mont. 3 Wilderness Ass’n, 647 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2011) (“If an applicant for intervention and an 4 existing party share the same ultimate objective, a presumption of adequacy of representation 5 arises.”). Smith also does not point to any evidence that Woodard or her counsel are inadequate. 6 Smith argues that the Court’s analysis is irrelevant because District of Oregon Magistrate 7 Judge Armistead has already appointed his counsel as interim class counsel. But this is only an 8 argument and Smith provides no legal authority in support of his claim. Because Smith does not 9 meet the test as defined by the Ninth Circuit for intervention as a matter of right, the Court will 10 end its analysis there. 11 B. Permissive intervention. 12 Although Smith has not demonstrated that he is entitled to intervention as a matter of 13 right, the Court is convinced that Smith should be permitted to intervene permissibly because he 14 satisfies the requirements of Rule 24(b)(1)(b). Permissive intervention “requires (1) an 15 independent ground for jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law and 16 fact between the movant's claim or defense and the main action.” Freedom from Religion 17 Found., Inc. v. Geithner, 644 F.3d 836, 843 (9th Cir. 2011). “On timely motion, the court may 18 permit anyone to intervene who is given a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or 19 has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed. 20 R. Civ. P. 24(b). 21 First, the Court has diversity jurisdiction over Smith’s case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) 22 because (a) there are 100 or more Class members, (b) intervenor is a citizen of a state that is 23 diverse from Defendant’s citizenship, and (c) the matter in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, 24 ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO DISTRICT OF OREGON - 5 1 exclusive of interests and costs. See Smith Lawsuit, Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 11–12. The Court finds that 2 the jurisdiction requirement is satisfied. 3 Next, Smith has timely filed his motion to intervene. Although the Court must be stricter 4 in its application of the timeliness factors for permissive intervention than it is for intervention as 5 of right, timeliness is not an issue here. League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 6 1297, 1308 (9th Cir. 1997). Smith filed his motion to intervene early enough in the litigation that 7 neither party will be prejudiced. 8 9 Finally, Smith’s claims have questions of law and fact in common with Woodard’s. Indeed, Smith’s interests arise from an identical nucleus of facts. Both Smith and Woodard seek 10 to hold Kaye-Smith liable for the data breach that impacted their personally identifiable 11 information. The cases also have some overlapping claims. 12 Smith meets the requirements for permissive intervention. The Court will allow Smith to 13 intervene for the limited purpose of his request to either transfer this case to the District of 14 Oregon or to stay this case pending resolution of the Smith Lawsuit. 15 II. First-to-file rule. 16 Smith seeks to invoke the first-to-file rule, asking the Court to either transfer this case to 17 be consolidated with the first-filed Smith Lawsuit or to stay this case pending resolution of the 18 Smith Lawsuit. The first-to-file rule is a “generally recognized doctrine of federal comity which 19 permits a district court to decline jurisdiction over an action when a complaint involving the 20 same parties and issues has already been filed in another district.” Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. 21 Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94–95 (9th Cir. 1982). “The first-to-file rule is intended to serve 22 the purpose of promoting efficiency well and should not be disregarded lightly.” Kohn L. Grp., 23 Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir. 2015). “The purpose of the rule 24 is to eliminate wasteful duplicative litigation, to avoid rulings that may trench upon a sister ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO DISTRICT OF OREGON - 6 1 court’s authority, and to avoid piecemeal resolution of issues calling for a uniform result.” 2 Pecznick v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:22-CV-00743-TL, 2022 WL 4483123, at *2 (W.D. Wash. 3 Sept. 27, 2022) (citation omitted). 4 In determining whether to apply the first-to-file rule, courts consider the (1) chronology 5 of the lawsuits, (2) similarity of the parties, and (3) similarity of the issues. Kohn Law Grp., Inc. 6 v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1240 (9th Cir. 2015). 7 First, the Smith Lawsuit was the first-filed case. Next, the parties do not contest that 8 plaintiffs in both suits are similarly situated and that their proposed class definitions have 9 substantial overlap. See Ctr. v. Pompeo, No. C18-1122JLR, 2018 WL 6523135, at *5 (W.D. 10 Wash. Dec. 12, 2018) (“In the context of class actions, a court should compare the putative 11 classes, rather than the named plaintiffs, to determine whether the classes encompass at least 12 some of the same individuals.”). The putative class of Washington residents in this case is 13 subsumed within the putative nationwide class of individuals proposed in the Smith Lawsuit. In 14 other words, Woodard’s proposed class is a subset of the class that Smith seeks to represent. 15 The addition of BECU as a Defendant “does not necessarily allow [the] later-filed action 16 to evade the first-to-file bar.” Cho v. Surgery Partners, Inc., 30 F.4th 1035, 1043 (11th Cir. 17 2022). Courts have “found non-identical defendants to be substantially similar” when the 18 “actions have generally involved multiple defendants with at least some overlapping defendants 19 in each suit.” Edmonds v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. C19-1613JLR, 2020 WL 5815745, at *6 (W.D. 20 Wash. Sept. 30, 2020) (citing Bewley v. CVS Health Corp., No. C17-802RSL, 2017 WL 21 5158443, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2017)). The Court finds that the plaintiff and defendants in 22 this case are substantially similar to those in the Smith Lawsuit. The addition of BECU in 23 Woodard’s case does not restrict the Court from applying the first-to-file rule. 24 ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO DISTRICT OF OREGON - 7 1 Finally, the issues are also “substantially similar.” See Kohn Law Grp., 787 F.3d at 1240 2 (“The issues in both cases also need not be identical, only substantially similar.”). This means 3 that the issues do not have to be identical, only that there is “substantial overlap” between the 4 two suits. Id. Both lawsuits address the same single data breach of Kaye-Smith’s servers. The 5 claims are based on the same facts and similar legal theories. Woodard raised concerns regarding 6 joint and several liability because BECU is not a defendant in the Smith Lawsuit. Notably, only a 7 limited number of claims currently remain against BECU in Woodard’s lawsuit. See Dkt. No. 46. 8 Regardless Woodard’s concerns regarding joint and several liability do not prevent the 9 application of the first-to-file rule. The Court leaves it to the discretion of the District of Oregon 10 to resolve any issues concerning joint and several liability to the extent they arise. 11 The Court will apply the first-to-file rule in this case. Thus, the only remaining question 12 is whether this case should be stayed or transferred. The Court finds that transfer of this case to 13 the District of Oregon would best serve the interest of justice and efficiency. Given the similarity 14 of the parties and issues, a transfer of this action will eliminate the risk of inconsistent rulings 15 and serve the principles of efficiency, economy, and comity by avoiding duplicate and inefficient 16 actions proceeding in separate districts. Whether the cases should be consolidated will be left to 17 the District of Oregon’s sound discretion. CONCLUSION 18 19 For the reasons set forth above, Smith’s motion for leave for limited intervention to 20 transfer or stay action (Dkt. No. 29) is GRANTED. Smith is GRANTED limited intervention 21 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(b). Woodard’s case and all pending motions are 22 TRANSFERRED to the District of Oregon. 23 24 Dated this 28th day of July, 2023. ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO DISTRICT OF OREGON - 8 1 2 3 A Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO DISTRICT OF OREGON - 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
