Feldman v. Catalyst Brands LLC, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
JEFFREY FELDMAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
CATALYST BRANDS LLC; PENNEY
OPCO d/b/a JCPENNEY; and
AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP, LLC,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00649
JUDGE MICHAEL J. TRUNCALE
LEAD CASE
AND
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
MICHAEL JATTA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
CATALYST BRANDS LLC; and PENNEY
OPCO d/b/a JCPENNEY,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00652
CHIEF JUDGE AMOS L. MAZZANT
AND
Case 4:26-cv-00649-MJT Document 27 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
BEVERLY HUDSON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
CATALYST BRANDS LLC; and PENNEY
OPCO d/b/a JCPENNEY,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00655
JUDGE MICHAEL J. TRUNCALE
AND
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
SHARI HOFMANN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
CATALYST BRANDS LLC; and PENNEY
OPCO d/b/a JCPENNEY,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00665
JUDGE MICHAEL J. TRUNCALE
AND
Case 4:26-cv-00649-MJT Document 27 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
ISAAC TELES-ROSARIO,
individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
CATALYST BRANDS LLC; and PENNEY
OPCO d/b/a JCPENNEY,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00666
JUDGE MICHAEL J. TRUNCALE
AND
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
PING WU, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
CATALYST BRANDS LLC; and PENNEY
OPCO, agent of JCPENNEY,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:26-CV-00668
CHIEF JUDGE AMOS L. MAZZANT
MEMORANDUM ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
THE RELATED ACTIONS AND APPOINT INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL
Plaintiffs in the six above-captioned cases (the “Related Actions”) seek consolidation under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 (the “Consolidation Motion”). [Dkt. 11]. Specifically, Plaintiffs
request that the Court: (1) consolidate the Related Actions pursuant to Rule 42(a), (2) appoint
Gerald D. Wells, III of Lynch Carpenter, LLP and Raina Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC as
Case 4:26-cv-00649-MJT Document 27 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Interim Class Counsel (collectively, “Proposed Interim Class Counsel”), (3) stay the above-
captioned cases as to pleading and other deadlines, and (4) require the filing of a consolidated
complaint within 45 days of entry of an order consolidating the cases and appointing Proposed
Interim Class Counsel.
Having reviewed the Consolidation Motion and the record in each case, the Court
concludes that the Motion will be GRANTED IN PART.
I.
Plaintiffs Jeffrey Feldman, Michael Jatta, and Beverly Hudson filed their class action
complaints on June 15, 2026, seeking to hold Catalyst Brands LLC and JCPenney liable for the
alleged disclosure of hundreds of thousands of sensitive employment-related records belonging to
them and other individuals affected by a data breach incident on or about June 12, 2026 (the “Data
Breach”).1 See, e.g., Feldman, No. 4:26-cv-649, [Dkt. 1]. Thereafter, the other Related Actions
were filed by Plaintiffs Shari Hofmann, Isaac Teles-Rosario, and Ping Wu, arising from the same
Data Breach and operative facts and asserting substantially identical claims on behalf of an
overlapping putative class. See, e.g., Hofmann, No. 4:26-cv-665, [Dkt. 1].
In the Related Actions, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to implement reasonable
data security practices to protect Plaintiffs’ and the putative class members’ PII, including their
names, W-2 tax records, and Social Security numbers, resulting in unauthorized access to this
information. The Related Actions seek to remedy Defendants’ alleged failures and the
consequences arising therefrom. Accordingly, Plaintiffs each filed their complaints as putative
class actions on behalf of themselves and all others affected by the Data Breach.
1 The Feldman case is the only one bringing claims against Authentic Brands Group, LLC. [Dkt. 11 at 3]. However,
all Defendants are nevertheless related because Authentic Brands Group is a company that operates a portfolio of
retail apparel brands that includes JCPenney and Catalyst Brands, LLC. Id.
Case 4:26-cv-00649-MJT Document 27 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
On July 2, 2026, Defendants filed a response to the Consolidation Motion, where they
indicated their consent to consolidation and the requested stay, but took no position regarding
interim class counsel. [Dkt. 14 at 3]. Defendants further consented to the 45-day deadline for
Plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint, and noted that conferral with Plaintiffs’ counsel
indicated that Plaintiffs agree to Defendants’ request for a similar 45-day deadline to respond. Id.
II.
Rule 42(a) permits a district court to consolidate “actions before the court involv[ing] a
common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “A trial court has broad discretion in
determining whether to consolidate a case pending before it.” Alley v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 767
F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1985) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Consolidating actions in a
district court is proper when the cases involve common questions of law and fact, and the district
judge finds that [consolidation] would avoid unnecessary costs or delay.” St. Bernard Gen. Hosp.,
Inc. v. Hosp. Serv. Ass’n of New Orleans, Inc., 712 F.2d 978, 989 (5th Cir. 1983). The purpose of
consolidation is to allow district courts “to manage their dockets efficiently while providing justice
to the parties.” Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 107 F.R.D. 250, 252 (S.D. Tex. 1985).
“Consolidation is improper if it would prejudice the rights of the parties.” St. Bernard Gen. Hosp.,
712 F.2d at 989.
In their Consolidation Motion, Plaintiffs contend, and the Court agrees, that the Related
Actions are substantially the same and consolidation is appropriate. See generally [Dkt. 11]. Each
lawsuit arises from the same common set of alleged operative facts, namely the same data breach
event. And all Plaintiffs assert overlapping claims, on behalf of similarly defined putative classes,
seeking similar relief. Under such circumstances, and in the specific context of multiple data
breach actions, courts have found consolidation appropriate. See, e.g., Lockhart v. El Centro Del
Case 4:26-cv-00649-MJT Document 27 Filed 10/09/26 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Barrio, No. SA-23-CV-01156, 2024 WL 303253, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2024) (finding
consolidation appropriate where plaintiffs were “asserting causes of action based on the same data
breach resulting from the same cyberattack”); Kaplan v. 21st Century Oncology Holdings, No.
2:16-CV-210, 2016 WL 9383330, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 21, 2016) (holding that common questions
of law and fact permeated consolidated cases “aris[ing] from the same alleged data breach”); Ruiz
v. Prestige Maint. USA, Ltd., No. 4:25-CV-805, 2025 WL 2917097, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 14,
2025) (similar).
Consolidation here will also avoid the risk of inconsistent judgments in the Related
Actions. See Lockhart, 2024 WL 303253, at *2 (holding that “[c]onsolidation [would] ensure
consistent rulings and promote judicial economy” where three cases asserted “causes of action
based on the same data breach resulting from the same cyberattack.”); JFP Servs., LLC v. Torans,
No. SA-17-CV-00210, 2017 WL 9362704, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2017) (“In light of these
common questions of law and fact, the Court finds there is a risk of inconsistent adjudication if the
Court were to allow these cases to be tried separately before different judges[.]”). It will also reduce
the time and costs for all involved by eliminating the need for separate filings, discovery,
settlement negotiations, hearings, and trials for the cases arising from the Data Breach. See Bayati
v. GWG Holdings, Inc., No. 3:22-CV-0410, 2023 WL 5925880, at *2–3 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2023)
(explaining that where two actions “ma[de] nearly identical legal claims based on the same set of
facts,” and were “filed on behalf of the same proposed class,” consolidation would “promote
judicial efficiency”); Gate Guard Servs. L.P. v. Solis, No. V-10-91, 2011 WL 2784447, at *15
(S.D. Tex. July 12, 2011) (ordering consolidation where “the same factual and legal issues exist in
both cases and consolidating the actions would be more efficient than litigating the two cases
separately”).
Case 4:26-cv-00649-MJT Document 27 Filed 10/09/26 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Further, the Court finds that any prejudice to the parties resulting from consolidation will
be minimal in comparison to these considerations. See Stoneeagle Servs., Inc. v. Gillman, No.
3:11-CV-02408-P, 2014 WL 12577069, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2014) (“Given the substantial
similarities among the facts and causes of action, the prospect of confusion incumbent on the fact
finder will be nominal at best because these cases tell the same story[.]”); Zolezzi v. Celadon
Trucking Servs., Inc., No. H-08-3508, 2009 WL 736057, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2009)
(approving consolidation of cases arising from a multi-vehicle collision where the cases shared
common questions of law and fact, the risk of prejudice or confusion was “minimal,” and such risk
was “outweighed by the risk of inconsistent judgments should the cases be tried separately”).
Finally, the Related Actions are procedurally positioned for consolidated treatment, as they
are all pending before this Court and at the same early stage of proceedings, with each complaint
filed within three days of each other, no discovery under way, and no dispositive motions pending.
See Doe (S.M.A.) v. Salesforce, Inc., No. 3:23-CV-915, 2023 WL 4108845, at *2 (N.D. Tex. June
20, 2023) (granting consolidation where “the cases are at the same stage of preparation for trial”);
Arnold & Co., LLC v. David K. Young Consulting, LLC, No. SA-13-CV-00146, 2013 WL
1411773, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2013) (ordering consolidation where “the cases were filed less
than one month apart, no dispositive motions have been filed in either case, and very little
discovery has occurred”).
For these reasons, the Related Actions, the parties thereto, and the Court will be best served
in a consolidated proceeding, which will preserve party and judicial resources.
III.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Consolidated Motion is GRANTED IN PART.
Case 4:26-cv-00649-MJT Document 27 Filed 10/09/26 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
Specifically, Plaintiffs’ request to consolidate the Related Actions is GRANTED. It is
ORDERED that the Related Actions shall be consolidated for all purposes, including pretrial
proceedings and trial, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), before this Court (the
“Consolidated Action”). Feldman v. Catalyst Brands LLC et al., No. 4:26-CV-649, is designated
the Lead Case.
All parties are instructed to file any future filings in the Lead Case. The Court will enter
one scheduling order, one protective order, and one discovery order that will govern the entire
Consolidated Action. The local rules’ page limitations for motions will apply to the Consolidated
Action. To further promote judicial economy and to conserve the parties’ resources, the Court
encourages the parties to file a notice with the Court in the event that other related cases are filed
on the Court’s docket that may also be appropriate for consolidation with this case.
All papers filed in the Consolidated Action shall be filed under the Lead Case and shall
bear the following caption:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
IN RE CATALYST BRANDS LLC et al.
DATA BREACH LITIGATION
This Document Relates To:
§
§
§
§
§
§
MASTER FILE NO. 4:26-CV-00649
The case file for the Consolidated Action will be maintained under Master File No. 4:26-
CV-00649. When a pleading is intended to apply to all actions to which this Order applies, the
words “ALL ACTIONS” shall appear immediately after the words “This Document Relates To:”
Case 4:26-cv-00649-MJT Document 27 Filed 10/09/26 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
in the caption. When a pleading is not intended to apply to all actions, the docket number for each
individual action to which the filing is intended to apply and the last name of the first-named
plaintiff in said action shall appear immediately after the words “This Document Relates To:” in
the caption (e.g., “No. 4:26-CV-00665, Hofmann”).
All papers previously filed and served to date in the Related Actions are deemed part of
the record in the Consolidated Action.
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ request to appoint Interim Class Counsel is
GRANTED. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), and pending further order of the
Court on this issue, the Court hereby appoints Gerald D. Wells, III of Lynch Carpenter, LLP and
Raina C. Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC as Interim Class Counsel to act on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and the putative class members in the Consolidated Action.2 Interim Class Counsel shall
have the sole authority to handle the responsibilities set forth below:
• Determine and present (in briefs, oral argument, or such other fashion as may be
appropriate, personally or by a designee) to the Court and opposing parties the position
of the Plaintiffs on all matters arising during pretrial proceedings;
• Coordinate the initiation and conduct of discovery on behalf of Plaintiffs and the
putative class consistent with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
• Convene meetings amongst counsel;
• Conduct settlement negotiations on behalf of Plaintiffs and the putative class;
• Delegate specific tasks to plaintiffs’ counsel in a manner to ensure that pretrial
preparation for Plaintiffs and the putative class is conducted efficiently and effectively;
• Negotiate and enter into stipulations with opposing counsel as necessary for the
conduct and efficient advancement of the litigation;
2 The Court notes that the reference to “putative” class members in this Order is significant. There are no actual “class
members” unless and until a class has been certified. See Cruson v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 954 F.3d 240, 250
(5th Cir. 2020) (citing Police & Fire Ret. Sys. of Detroit v. IndyMac MBS, Inc., 721 F.3d 95, 112 n.22 (2d Cir. 2013)
for the proposition that “until certification there is no class action but merely the prospect of one”).
Case 4:26-cv-00649-MJT Document 27 Filed 10/09/26 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
• Monitor the activities of all counsel to ensure that schedules are being met and
unnecessary expenditures of time and funds are avoided;
• Perform such other duties as may be incidental to the proper coordination of Plaintiffs’
pretrial activities or authorized by further order of this Court;
• Serve as the primary contact for communications between the Court and other
plaintiffs’ counsel;
• Ensure that all notices, orders, and material communications are properly distributed
(to the extent that they are not otherwise served on plaintiffs’ counsel via the Court’s
electronic filing system);
• Communicate with defense counsel as necessary to promote the efficient advancement
of this litigation;
• Make available to other plaintiffs’ counsel documents produced by the Defendant; and
• Allocate attorneys’ fees.
Any other plaintiffs’ counsel will perform work in this litigation only at the direction of
Interim Class Counsel. No motion, request for discovery, or other pretrial proceedings shall be
initiated or filed by any Plaintiff except through Interim Class Counsel and no other plaintiffs’
counsel or firm shall be authorized to perform any work in the case without the express
authorization of Interim Class Counsel.
Interim Class Counsel shall have sole authority to communicate with Defendants’
counsel—including with respect to settlement and settlement negotiations—and the Court on
behalf of any Plaintiff unless that authority is expressly delegated to other counsel. Defendants’
counsel may rely on all agreements made with Interim Class Counsel, and such agreements shall
be binding on all other plaintiffs’ counsel.
It is further ORDERED that the parties’ request to stay the Related Actions as to pleading
and other deadlines is DENIED. The Court will enter an order scheduling a Rule 16 Case
Management Conference for the Consolidated Action following the entry of this Order.
Case 4:26-cv-00649-MJT Document 27 Filed 10/09/26 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ request for a 45-day deadline to file a consolidated
class-action complaint, and Defendants’ request for a 45-day deadline to file an answer, are
GRANTED. Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action shall file an operative consolidated class-action
complaint within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Order. Defendants shall answer or
otherwise respond to the consolidated pleading within forty-five (45) days from the date on which
Plaintiffs file the consolidated class-action complaint.
This Order shall apply to the above-captioned matters, any subsequently consolidated
action, any actions consolidated with the above-captioned matters, and any actions filed in,
transferred to, removed to, or otherwise sent to this Court relating to the alleged facts and the data
breach underlying this litigation.
____________________________
Michael J. Truncale
United States District Judge
SIGNED this 8th day of October, 2026.
Case 4:26-cv-00649-MJT Document 27 Filed 10/09/26 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:
<pageID>