Kiminski v. Hunt - No. 13-185 (JNE/TNL), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157829 (D. Minn. Sep. 20, 2013)

Rule:

A defendant may seek to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a complaint to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Although a pleading need not contain detailed factual allegations, "[a] pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'"

Facts:

Plaintiffs were Minnesota residents who provided private data about themselves to the Minnesota Department of Public Safety ("DPS") in order to obtain and use a state driver's license. They instituted the present consolidated putative class actions, contending that a former Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") employee, John Hunt, engaged in unauthorized viewing of private data from their motor vehicle records. The consolidated amended complaint alleged violations of the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act ("DPPA"), 18 U.S.C. § 2721 et seq., and Plaintiffs' constitutional right to privacy by Hunt and various employees of the DPS and DNR, in their individual capacities. The complaint also named the commissioners of the DPS and DNR as defendants in their official capacities for purposes of seeking prospective relief. The Defendants other than Hunt ("State Defendants") filed the present motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), seeking to dismiss the complaint against them for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The State Defendants argued that the complaint did not alleged, as required under 18 U.S.C. § 2724(a), that any State Defendant knowingly "obtained, disclosed, or used" any of their personal information "for a purpose not permitted" by the DPPA.

Issue:

Should the complaint against the State Defendants be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court noted that in order to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Thus, the complaint must do more than merely leave open the possibility that a plaintiff might later establish some set of undisclosed facts to support recovery. In this case, the court held that the complaint failed to state a DPPA claim against the State Defendants since it alleged no facts that made it plausible that the defendants "knowingly" gave defendant Hunt database access "for a purpose not permitted" by the DPPA. At no point did the complaint allege that Defendant Hunt should not have received access to the DPS Databases for purposes of his legitimate job duties as a DNR employee. Anent plaintiffs’ claim under Section 1983 for Violations of Constitutional Rights, the court held that plaintiffs did not cite any cases that have found a constitutional right to privacy in the type of information protected by the DPPA. According to the court, not every disclosure of personal information will implicate the constitutional right to privacy and the personal rights found in the guarantee of personal privacy must be limited to those which are fundamental or implicit within the concept of ordered liberty. In order to violate the constitutional right of privacy, the information disclosed must be either a shocking degradation or an egregious humiliation to further some specific state interest, or a flagrant breach of a pledge of confidentiality which was instrumental in obtaining the personal information. The complaint did not allege such a violation as to any individual plaintiff. Accordingly, the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted.