Krottner v. Starbucks Corp. - 628 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2010)

Rule:

The possibility of future injury may be sufficient to confer standing on plaintiffs; threatened injury constitutes injury in fact. A plaintiff may allege a future injury in order to comply with the injury-in-fact requirement, but only if he or she is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the challenged conduct and the injury or threat of injury is both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical. However, the party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the requirements for standing at every stage of the litigation, as it does for any other essential element of the case.

Facts:

On October 29, 2008, a theft incident happened in defendant coffee shop-Starbucks; someone stole a laptop which contained the unencrypted names, addresses, and social security numbers of approximately 97,000 Starbucks employees. Defendant sent a letter to its employees, plaintiffs-appellants Laura Krottner, Ishaya Shamasa, and Joseph Lalli, and other affected employees alerting them to the theft and stating that Starbucks had no indication that the private information has been misused. Plaintiff-appellants alleged that after receiving the letter, they enrolled in the free credit watch services that Starbucks offered. Plaintiffs alleged that they had been extra vigilant about her banking spending a substantial amount of time doing so. The other, alleged that he had generalized anxiety and stress regarding the situation. And the other alleged that his bank notified him that someone attempted to open a new account using his social security number. Plaintiffs filed two nearly identical putative class action complaints against their employer- defendant, alleging negligence and breach of implied contract. The district court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, and held that plaintiffs have standing under Article III but had failed to allege a cognizable injury under Washington law. Plaintiffs thus appealed. 

Issue:

Did the district court err in its decision holding that plaintiffs failed to alleged a cognizable injury under Washington law in their complaint?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the district court's finding that plaintiffs, whose personal information has been stolen but not misused,  suffered an injury sufficient to confer standing under U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. However, the court affirmed dismissal of their state-law claims in a memorandum disposition filed contemporaneously with the court's opinion.