Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02392/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02392-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lexisnexis Group
Defendant
Reed Elsevier, Inc.
Defendant
Seisint, Inc.
Defendant
Mark Witriol
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WITRIOL,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 LEXISNEXIS GROUP et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C05-02392 MJJ

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pending before the Court is Defendants LexisNexis Group, Reed Elsevier, Inc., and Seisint, Inc.'s

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. # 37). Plaintiff Mark Witriol has filed

an Opposition (Doc. #38), to which Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. #41). Also pending before the Court

is Plaintiff’s request for Judicial Notice (Doc. #39). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this class action against Defendants on June 13, 2005, alleging that Defendant

disclosed consumer reports and personal information about Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members

without their consent or authorization to third parties who lacked any permissible purpose for receiving

and using such information. (Sec. Am. Cmplt. at ¶26.) On July 25, 2005, Defendants moved to dismiss

Plaintiff’s Complaint. In response, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, asserting seven claims against

Defendants, including one for violation of California Information Practices Act, California Civil Code

§ 1798.53 (count six). Defendants again moved to dismiss the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in its

Case 3:05-cv-02392-MJJ Document 43 Filed 04/27/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

entirety. On February 10, 2006, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss. Particularly, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim under § 1798.53, on the ground that Plaintiff

had failed to allege necessary elements of the claim, but granted Plaintiff leave to amend to attempt to

cure such deficiencies. On February 24, 2006, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (Doc.

#35). Defendants now move to dismiss the § 1798.53 claim, arguing that Plaintiff has failed to plead

a viable claim under this statute. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim. Navarro

v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). Because the focus of a 12(b)(6) motion is on the legal

sufficiency, rather than the substantive merits of a claim, the Court ordinarily limits its review to the face

of the complaint. See Van Buskirk v. Cable News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002).

Generally, dismissal is proper only when the plaintiff has failed to assert a cognizable legal theory or

failed to allege sufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. See SmileCare Dental Group v. Delta

Dental Plan of Cal., Inc., 88 F.3d 780, 782 (9th Cir. 1996); Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d

696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984).

Further, dismissal is appropriate only if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of

facts in support of a claim. See Abramson v. Brownstein, 897 F.2d 389, 391 (9th Cir. 1990). In

considering a 12(b)(6) motion, the Court accepts the plaintiff’s material allegations in the complaint as

true and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Shwarz v. United States, 234

F.3d 428, 435 (9th Cir. 2000). 

III. ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1798.53 Claim

California Civil Code § 1798 provides:

Any person, other than an employee of the state or of a local government

agency acting solely in his or her official capacity, who intentionally

discloses information, not otherwise public, which they know or should

reasonably know was obtained from personal information maintained by

a state agency or from “records” within a “system of records” (as these

terms are defined in the Federal Privacy Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-79; 5

U.S.C. 552a)) maintained by a federal governmental agency, shall be

subject to a civil action, for invasion of privacy, by the individual to

whom the information pertains. 

Case 3:05-cv-02392-MJJ Document 43 Filed 04/27/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

In Count Six of his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff re-asserts that, in disclosing certain

information to third parties without his consent, Defendants violated § 1798. 53. Specifically, Plaintiff

alleges: 

59. [] Defendants violated Representative Plaintiff’s and the

California Class Members’ privacy rights and Civil Code § 1798.53 by

intentionally selling, disclosing and distributing their privileged financial,

credit, and other confidential information, which Defendant knew or

reasonably should have known was obtained from personal information

maintained by state and/or federal agencies, to unauthorized third parties.

Defendants intentionally disclosed Plaintiff’s and the California Class

Members personal information without their knowledge or consent. The

unauthorized sale, disclosure and distribution of such private data and

information is offensive and objectionable to a reasonable person of

ordinary sensibilities. 

60. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, the privacy

rights of the Representative Plaintiff and the California Class Members

have been violated, and Representative Plaintiff and California Class

Members have ben injured and damaged as a result thereof. 

61. Defendants’ unlawful conduct as alleged herein was

intentional, oppressive and/or malicious, therefor Representative Plaintiff

and California Class Members are entitled to the statutory damages set

forth at Civil Code 1798.53, including exemplary damages, and all other

appropriate relief set forth in the Prayer for Relief herein.

Defendants now urge the Court to dismiss Count Six of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint because:

(1) Plaintiff failed to allege two necessary elements of § 1798.53; and (2) Plaintiff failed to allege any

facts supporting the claim. Plaintiff, however, maintains that he has corrected the pleading deficiencies

that the Court identified in its prior Order and has thus pled an actionable claim under § 1798.53. 

Defendants first contend that Plaintiff has failed to allege that the information at issue “was not

otherwise public.” Rather, citing ¶59 of the Second Amended Complaint, Defendants argue that

Plaintiff has merely alleged that the information was “privileged financial, credit and other confidential

information.” According to Defendants “[t]his is not equivalent to an allegation that the information

was ‘not otherwise public.’” 

Additionally, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to allege that the information allegedly

disclosed about him was obtained from “personal information maintained by a state agency” or

“‘records’ within a ‘system of records’ [] maintained by a federal governmental agency.” Again citing

citing ¶59, Defendants argue that Plaintiff “only alleges vaguely that the information was obtained from

‘state and/or federal agencies.” According to Defendants, this allegation is sufficient to “establish” that

Case 3:05-cv-02392-MJJ Document 43 Filed 04/27/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Plaintiff’s information was obtained from a state agency or from federal agency records of the type

described in the Federal Privacy Act. Based on these purported pleading deficiencies, Defendants urge

the Court to dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1798.53 claim. The Court, however, is unpersuaded by Defendants’

arguments. 

As Defendants acknowledge, Plaintiff has pled that Defendants impermissibly disclosed

“privileged financial, credit and other confidential information.” While Defendants argue that Plaintiff

did not expressly allege that such information was not otherwise publicly available, construing these

allegations in Plaintiff’s favor, the Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations that the information was both

confidential and privileged are sufficient to meet this element of his §1798.53 claim. See Jennifer M.

v. Redwood Women’s Health Ctr., 88 Cal. App. 4th 81, 89 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (“Section 1798.53 sets

out a civil action for damages for the intentional disclosure of confidential personal information[.]”)

(emphasis added). In the same vein, although Defendants contend that Plaintiff failed to allege that the

information that Defendants’ purportedly disclosed was obtained from information maintained by a state

agency or from records within a system of records maintained by a federal agency, Defendants note that

Plaintiff expressly alleged that the information “was obtained from personal information maintained by

state and/or federal agencies[.]” Defendants’ contention that such an allegation is insufficient to

“establish” this element of Plaintiff’s claim is misplaced. At the pleading stage, merely alleging the

necessary element of a claim is sufficient to satisfy Rule 8 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.

Whether Plaintiff has sufficient evidentiary support to establish this necessary element of his claim is

a matter addressed at the summary judgment stage, not in the context of a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion. 

In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that the information was not otherwise

available to the public and was obtained from information maintained by a state agency or from federal

agency records. 

Defendants next argue that “the operative complaint utterly fails to allege any of the facts and

circumstances surrounding LexisNexis’s alleged violation of section 1798.53.” Specifically, Defendants

argue that Plaintiff has not specified what nonpublic information was disclosed; from what government

agency the information was obtained; and has not “explain[ed] any of the facts surrounding the alleged

‘intentional’ disclosure of that information to ‘unauthorized persons.’” Rather, Defendants assert that

Case 3:05-cv-02392-MJJ Document 43 Filed 04/27/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

the Second Amended Complaint “simply restates the elements of a claim under section 1798.53 in a

conclusory fashion.” Again, the Court find Defendants’ challenge unpersuasive. Although Plaintiff’s

Second Amended Complaint does not provide much detail about the exact nature of the information that

Defendants’ purportedly disclosed, this is not a claim to which any heightened pleading standard is

applicable. As Defendants concede, Plaintiff has plead the requisite elements under § 1798.53 along

with some facts describing the conduct the Plaintiff claims constituted a violation of this section. This

is sufficient to put Defendants on notice of the nature of Plaintiff’s claim, and therefore satisfies Rule

8’s minimal pleading standard. The Court therefore rejects Defendants’ challenge and finds that

Plaintiff has sufficiently pled a claim under California Civil Code §1798.53.

B. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice

Because the Court finds the arguments raised in the parties’ moving papers sufficient to resolve

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court finds its unnecessary to look at any extraneous documents,

and therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (Doc. #39) as moot.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint. (Doc. #37), and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (Doc.

#39). Further, the Court VACATES the hearing on Defendants’ Motion set for May 2, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 26, 2006 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02392-MJJ Document 43 Filed 04/27/06 Page 5 of 5