IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHRISTOPHER F. KELLY, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION
Civ. No. 25-6234 MARY SIKORA, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION
Civ. No. 25-6262 CHRISTIAN BERSANI, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION
Civ. No. 25-6265 KELLI MACKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION
Civ. No. 25-6266
1
2
WENDY BRAUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION
Civ. No. 25-6291 JOHNATHAN KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION
Civ. No. 25-6320 REBECCA LUNDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION
Civ. No. 25-6330
ROBIN WASHINGTON SMART,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION
Civ. No. 25-6333
3
NEIL GADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION
Civ. No. 25-6343 JASON ROSENBAUM, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION
Civ. No. 25-6357 MATTHEW LACHS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION
Civ. No. 25-6388 RYAN O'HARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION
Civ. No. 25-6408
4
JASON HUGHES RANSOM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF PENNSYLVANIA d/b/a THE
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION
Civ. No. 25-6438 SHARON KELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION
Civ. No. 25-6799 MONIQUE LUKENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION
Civ. No. 25-6826 ADAM KORENGOLD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION
Civ. No. 25-6864
5
THOMAS BUCKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION
Civ. No. 25-6902 RONALD BLUE, JR. and RONELL CONNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION
Civ. No. 25-7108
MEMORANDUM
COSTELLO, J. December 18, 2025
In October 2025, the University of Pennsylvania experienced a cybersecurity incident. Each of the above-captioned cases stems from that incident, and the complaints allege that the data breach resulted in unauthorized access to the class members' sensitive personal information. Majority Plaintiffs Christopher F. Kelly, Mary Sikora, Christian Bersani, Kelli Mackey, Wendy Braund, Rebecca Lundy, Robin Washington Smart, Neil Gade, and Jason Rosenbaum have moved to consolidate these actions and set certain deadlines.1Majority Plaintiffs Johnathan Kim, Matthew Lachs, Ryan O'Hara, and Jason Hughes Ransom did not respond to the consolidation motion. Majority Plaintiffs Sharon Keld, Monique Lukens, Adam Korengold,
6
Thomas Bucks, and Ronald Blue, Jr. filed their complaints while the consolidation motion was pending. For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant the motion.
I. DISCUSSION
If actions involve a common question of law or fact, the court may "consolidate the actions[,]" or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay." FED. R. CIV. P. 42(a). A court has broad power under Rule 42(a), and it may consolidate cases upon request or on its own initiative. Ellerman Lines, Ltd. v. Atl. & Gulf Stevedores, Inc., 339 F.2d 673, 675-76 (3d Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 812 (1965).
Consolidating the actions here would promote judicial economy and facilitate the administration of justice. Each case is a putative class action arising from the same alleged data breach. Additionally, each case names the University of Pennsylvania or its Trustees as the defendant, includes similar factual allegations, and proposes similar class definitions. Further, the complaints raise substantially the same claims. Under these circumstances, the actions involve common questions of law and fact, and consolidation will promote judicial efficiency by avoiding unnecessary costs, delay, and duplicative efforts. See, e.g., Meyers v. Onix Group, LLC., No. 23-2288, 2023 WL 4630674, at *1-*2 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 19, 2023) (consolidating six actions and any related future actions arising out of the same data breach). Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate and set deadlines. An appropriate order follows.
BY THE COURT:
MARY KAY COSTELLO
United States District Judge