Clausner et al v. American Multispecialty Group Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CASTEN CLAUSNER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated ,
)
)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 4:25-CV-00711-MAL
)
AMERICAN MULTISPECIALTY 	)
GROUP INC., d/b/a ESSE HEALTH 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Consolidate filed by Defendant
American Multispecialty Group, Inc. d/b/a Esse Health (“Esse Health”). Doc. 30.1 Esse Health
moves to consolidate this action with Doering, v. American Multispecialty Group, Inc., No.
4:25-cv-1302 (E.D. Mo.), a putative class action recently removed to this Court. If Plaintiffs
Casten Clausner et al. had opposed this motion, their response would have been due on
September 1, 2025. E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.01(B). Thus, this Court considers the motion unopposed.
For the following reasons, this Court GRANTS the motion to consolidate.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On May 15, 2025, Plaintiff Casten Clausner filed this putative class action lawsuit
against Esse Health relating to a data security incident that occurred in April 2025. Clausner
alleges that Esse Health failed to properly safeguard protected health information (“PHI”) and
personally identifiable information (“PII”) of patients and/or employees. Clausner alleges that
1 All record citations use the page numbers assigned by the CM/ECF Electronic Document Filing System. Record
citation from Clausner et al v. American Multispecialty Group Inc. 4:25-cv-00711-MAL will be referred to as “Doc.”
Record citations from Doering v. American Multispecialty Group, Inc. 4:25-cv-01302-JMD will be referred to as
“Doering Doc.”
Case: 4:25-cv-00711-MAL Doc. #: 37 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
the data breach caused injuries including invasion of privacy, theft of PHI/PII, lost or
diminished value of PHI/PII, costs of investigating or mitigating the consequences of the
breach, loss of the benefit of the bargain, and risks that PII will be misused in the future.
Clausner asserts claims of negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion
of privacy, and violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45.
Clausner seeks to represent a proposed nationwide class defined as follows: “All individuals
residing in the United States whose PHI/PII were accessed and acquired by an unauthorized
party as a result of a data breach that occurred on, or about, April 2025, as reported by
Defendant.”
Six other putative class action lawsuits arising from the same April 2025 data breach
were filed against Esse Health in Missouri state court. Doc. 20. Esse Health removed each of
those cases to this Court on June 18, 2025. Doc. 20. They were consolidated with this action
on July 14, 2025. Doc. 20. (together, the “Related Actions”)
On August 28th, 2025, Esse Health removed another putative class action lawsuit
arising from the same data breach from state to federal court. The case is captioned as follows:
Doering v. American Multispecialty Group, Inc., No. 4:25-cv-01302-JMD. The facts and
injuries alleged in Doering is very similar to those alleged in the Related Actions. Though not
all claims asserted in the Related Actions are identical, each action includes claims of
negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied contract. Doc. 1; Doering Doc. 1. The
proposed class definitions in Doering and Clausner are virtually identical. Doc. 1; Doering
Doc 1. Esse Health now moves to consolidate Doering with the Related Actions.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Consistent with Local Rule 4.03, Esse Health filed the motion in this action because it is
the case bearing the lowest number. See E.D. Mo. L.R. 4.03 (“A party desiring the consolidation
Case: 4:25-cv-00711-MAL Doc. #: 37 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 3 -
of related cases shall file a motion in the case bearing the lowest cause number. ...The district or
magistrate judge presiding in the lowest-numbered case shall rule on the motion.”). Also consistent
with Local Rule 4.03, Esse Health filed in Doering a notice of the motion to consolidate, to which
the motion was attached. No responses to the motion to consolidate have been filed.
Under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “If actions before the court
involve common questions of law or fact, the court may: ... (2) consolidate the actions.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 42(a). 	A district court has broad discretion in determining whether to order
consolidation. Enter. Bank v. Saettele, 21 F.3d 233, 235 (8th Cir. 1994). Consolidation is
inappropriate “if it leads to inefficiency, inconvenience, or unfair prejudice to a party.” E.E.O.C.
v. HEE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir. 1998).
After review of Esse Health' motion and the complaints, the Court finds that consolidation
is appropriate here. The actions involve a common defendant. The actions arise from the same
incident, involve similar alleged injuries, and assert several of the same causes of action. The
actions will likely involve very similar discovery, defenses, and dispositive motions. The Court
finds that consolidation will promote efficiency, convenience, and judicial economy. Additionally,
no party has suggested that it will be prejudiced by consolidation. The Court will therefore grant
the motion to consolidate. See In re Navvis & Co., LLC Data Breach Litig., No. 4:24-CV-00029-
AGF, ECF No. 21 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 9, 2024) (consolidating several putative class actions where the
cases "ar[o]se out of similar facts, gr[ew] out of the same alleged data breach, ha[d] proposed class
definitions that will encompass the same persons, involve[d] the same defendant, and present[ed]
common questions of law and fact"); Lowe v. Pecorella, No. 4:23-CV-798-MTS, 2023 WL
4743246, at *1 (E.D. Mo. July 25, 2023) (finding consolidation was warranted where “[t]he cases
involve[d] the same or similar parties, causes of action, and allegations”).
Case: 4:25-cv-00711-MAL Doc. #: 37 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 4 -
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Esse Health’s Motion to
Consolidate (Doc. 30) is GRANTED. The Clerk is ordered to reassign Doering v. American
Multispecialty Group, Inc. 4:25-cv-01302-JMD to the undersigned and to consolidate it with
the instant case for all purposes.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall docket and file a copy of this
Memorandum and Order in both this case and in case no. 4:25-cv-01302-JMD.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk shall administratively close Doering v.
American Multispecialty Group, Inc., 4:25-cv-01302-JMD.
All future documents shall be filed only in this action, Case No. 4:25-CV- 00711-MAL.
No further filings will be accepted in the closed case.
Dated this 30th day of October 2025.
MARIA A. LANAHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-00711-MAL Doc. #: 37 Filed: 10/31/25 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>