Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
August 27, 2015, Decided; August 28, 2015, Filed
[*1081] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S DISMISSAL MOTION UNDER RULES 12(b)(1) AND 12(b)(6)
Defendant moves under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rules") 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for dismissal of Plaintiff's putative class action, arguing under Rule 12(b)(1): "Plaintiff lacks Article III standing [to pursue his claims] because he has not alleged a cognizable injury in fact traceable to any action by [Defendant], and the Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction." (Def.'s Mem. P. & A. Supp. Mot. Dismiss ("Mot.") 2:9-10, ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff alleges subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) and 1332(d).
[*1082] Plaintiff's allegations include the following:
[This is a] California consumer class action to secure redress . . . . [for the] betray[al of] Plaintiff's and [putative] Class Members' trust . . . . In September 2011, [Defendant] . . . fail[ed] to properly safeguard and protect [Plaintiff's and putative Class Members' personally identifiable information [**2] ("PII") and private health information ("PHI")], and publicly disclos[ed] their PII/PHI without authorization (the "Data Breach"), in violation of . . . the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA") (CAL. CIV. CODE §56, et seq.), California Unfair Competition Law (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §17200, et seq.), and California common law.
Plaintiff and [putative] Class Members are current and former United States military servicemen, servicewomen, and the family members of these servicemen and women . . . .
The United States Department of Defense . . . contracted with [Defendant] to provide . . . electronic information management and data security services for safeguarding and protecting Plaintiff's and [putative] Class Members' PII/PHI, all of which was entrusted to [Defendant] in connection with obtaining health care coverage . . . .
[O]n September 12, 2011, Plaintiff's and [putative] Class Members' PII/PHI . . . . was contained on backup data tapes transported in an unsecure manner by [Defendant's] newly hired, low-level employee in his personal vehicle. The data tapes were taken from the [employee's] vehicle while it was parked in downtown San Antonio, Texas, and left unattended for over eight hours.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
127 F. Supp. 3d 1078 *; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114858 **
MARTIN FERNANDEZ on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LEIDOS, INC., Defendant.
Subsequent History: Dismissed by, Judgment entered by Fernandez v. Leidos, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142560 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 20, 2015)
tapes, allegations, backup, argues, theft, personal information, alleged facts, credit report, advertisements, imminent, security clearance, putative class, thief, healthcare provider, medical condition, medical record, e-mail, standing to bring, bank account, Confidentiality, contractor, traceable, stolen, medical information, identity theft, targeting, coverage, clinic, courts, misuse