In Re: AT&T Inc Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, 3:24-cv-00757

Over 57,000 individuals, represented by certain law firms, sought to arbitrate claims arising from the AT&T data breach class action, objecting to their inclusion in a proposed settlement class.
The court had preliminarily approved a proposed settlement and set procedures for objections and a final approval hearing, along with a limited injunction against initiating parallel arbitrations.
Claimants' counsel attempted to intervene, arguing for mass arbitration and objecting to the opt-out requirements, but their evidence of arbitration agreements was insufficient and they had already violated the court’s injunction by initiating thousands of arbitration demands.
After intervention was denied, claimants filed an emergency motion seeking an expedited stay pending interlocutory appeal, just days before the class notice deadline.
The court found claimants lacked standing and had delayed unnecessarily in seeking emergency relief, undermining any claimed urgency.
The requested interlocutory appeal and stay were denied as unwarranted and disruptive to the class action process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Stay proceedings pending appeal	Stay is necessary to protect claimants’ arbitration rights	No basis or evidence for a stay; motion is disruptive	Denied; claimants lack standing and failed to justify a stay
Right to appeal without intervention	Can appeal class prelim approval order, even as non-parties	Only parties and proper intervenors can appeal	Denied; non-parties cannot appeal
Mass opt-out from class settlement via counsel	Mass opt-outs should be permitted for represented claimants	Opt-out must be individualized to protect integrity	Denied; individualized opt-outs are necessary
Certification for interlocutory appeal under §1292(b)	Significant legal questions merit immediate appellate review	No exceptional issue or substantial difference of opinion	Denied; no substantial ground for interlocutory appeal

Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301 (Only parties or proper intervenors may appeal an adverse judgment)
In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litig., 570 F.3d 244 (Non-parties cannot generally appeal district court rulings)
Benisek v. Lamone, 585 U.S. 155 (Party seeking emergency relief must act with due diligence)
In re Deepwater Horizon, 819 F.3d 190 (Individualized opt-out requirements are common and proper in complex MDLs)
In re JPMorgan Chase & Co., 916 F.3d 494 (Distinguishing opt-in versus opt-out procedures for class members under FLSA and Rule 23)