Class actions after a disclosed breach: ADT and TD Ameritrade

What the four documents cover

The question has three parts: suits being filed, suits being consolidated into multidistrict litigation, and suits being settled. The documents supplied cover the first two with docket entries and show no settlement. They are an ADT Inc. Form 8-K, the docket in Jeanfort v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., the docket in MDL No. 3083, and the docket in John Patrick v. Running Warehouse, LLC.

The ADT filing contains no lawsuit. It is a disclosure and shows what a company says before any litigation appears. The three dockets show what courts record afterward. This guide reports only what those entries say.

The disclosure: ADT's Form 8-K

ADT's Form 8-K is dated April 24, 2026. The company's filing says it "became aware of unauthorized access to certain cloud-based environments" on April 20, 2026.

The filing says that after its investigation the company "determined that only limited customer and prospective customer data was accessed."

On materiality, ADT states that it "does not believe that this incident is reasonably likely to have a material impact on the Company's financial condition."

The filing also says the company is still working on the scope of the incident.

The 8-K does not mention any lawsuit, court, or plaintiff. Nothing in the supplied documents says whether suits followed the ADT disclosure.

Step one: a complaint is filed

The Jeanfort docket shows what a first filing looks like. Docket entry 1, dated August 25, 2023, records a complaint filed in the District of Nebraska "by Attorney Tyler W. Hudson on behalf of Keren Jeanfort."

The entry lists attachments that include the plaintiff's data breach letter, the notice the company sent about the incident.

On September 28, 2023, defense counsel appeared. The docket records a notice of appearance "on behalf of Defendants TD Ameritrade, Inc., The Charles Schwab Corporation."

The docket also shows that Jeanfort was not the only suit. A September 25, 2023 reassignment order, entry 9, states that "Case numbers 8:23CV380, 8:23CV381, and 8:23cv385 are related to 8:23CV375." Jeanfort is 8:23-cv-00380, so it was one of at least four related cases in the same court.

Step two: consolidation in the home court

On October 11, 2023, entry 13 records an order for consolidation and appointment of interim co-lead class counsel. The court states: "The above-captioned cases are consolidated for all purposes."

The order sets a schedule. The plaintiffs "shall file a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the Lead Case on or before November 27, 2023."

The defendants' deadline moves with it. The order extends the time to answer "to 30-days after the plaintiffs file the Consolidated Amended Complaint."

The same order names who leads for the plaintiffs. It appoints three lawyers from three firms as interim co-lead class counsel.

Case 8:23CV375 became the lead case and the others became member cases, according to the order. In practice, the separate filings became one case with one set of lawyers leading for the plaintiffs.

Step three: transfer into multidistrict litigation

Consolidation inside one court did not end the movement. On October 26, 2023, the Jeanfort docket logged a "COPY OF CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER from the Multidistrict Litigation Panel."

The clerk's final entry, on October 27, 2023, states: "Case transferred to District of Massachusetts, MDL 3083, CTO-6." The docket shows the case terminated in Nebraska on that date. The file went to the MDL.

The MDL 3083 docket, titled In re: MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, shows how that centralization starts. Its first entry, July 6, 2023, is a "MOTION TO TRANSFER (INITIAL MOTION) with Brief in Support."

That motion covered ten actions from federal courts in California, Minnesota, Louisiana, and Massachusetts, and it suggested the District of Minnesota as the transferee court. The docket lists these courts and the suggested court in the entry itself.

On July 7, 2023, the panel assigned a number: "MDL Number 3083 Assigned -- MOTION FOR TRANSFER ACCEPTED FOR FILING."

The briefing schedule from the clerk asked the parties to address alternatives to centralization. It says "the parties should address what steps they have taken to pursue alternatives to centralization."

New suits kept arriving while the motion was pending. Notices of related action were filed on July 11, July 18, and July 20, 2023. One, filed July 18, 2023, is described as "NOTICE OF RELATED ACTION -- 6 Action(s) -- Filed by attorney Carl Malmstrom, Counsel for Plaintiff Bruce Bailey."

The excerpt of the MDL docket supplied ends partway through entry 66, so it does not show the panel's ruling, the later stages, or the MDL's current state.

A different outcome: arbitration in Running Warehouse

The Running Warehouse docket shows that consolidation is not the only path. Defendants filed a "STIPULATION to Compel Arbitration" on March 3, 2022.

The court had already held a status conference on February 7, 2022. The minutes say the court "discusses the case status with counsel regarding the multiple related cases."

On October 18, 2022, the court granted the motion. The entry reads: "ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND DISMISSES PLAINTIFF INDIVIDUAL AND PUTATIVE CLASS CLAIMS IN THESE SEVEN RELATED ACTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE."

The plaintiff appealed on November 17, 2022, with a "NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed by Plaintiff John Patrick."

What the filings do not show: settlement

None of the four documents records a settlement. The ADT filing predates any suit in the record. The Jeanfort docket ends with the transfer to the MDL. The MDL excerpt ends before any resolution. The Running Warehouse docket ends with an appeal and the entry of an appellate mandate, whose content the docket text does not give.

To answer the settlement part of the question, a reader would need later MDL entries or a settlement notice, and none were supplied. The supplied record shows filing, consolidation, and transfer, and it does not show how any of these cases ended.