N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
PEGGY PR

U C HNIC K I, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. ENVISION HEALTHC ARE C ORPOR ATION, DB A Envision He a lthc a re ; EM C ARE , INC
. ; SHERIDAN HEALTHC O RP, INC .,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 20-15460 D.C . No. 2:19-c v-01193-JC M -B NW
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Jam e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 14, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , R AW LINSON, a

nd B A DE, C i rc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED APR 21 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Appe lla nt Pe g g y Pruc hnic ki (Pruc hnic ki) a ppe a ls the distric t

c o urt’ s dism issa l of he r c la im s a ga inst Appe lle e s Envision He a lthc are C orporation, Em c are , Inc ., a

nd She rida

n He a lthc orp, Inc . (c olle c tive ly , Envision). Spe c ific a lly , she c ha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm inat ion tha t she fa ile d to a de quate ly

a lle ge dam a ge s ste m

m ing from a

dat a bre a c h of Envision by

third pa rtie s . Pruc hnic ki
a lso c onte nds tha

t the distric t c o urt should ha ve grante d

le a v e to a m e nd he r c om pla i nt. Pruc hnic ki a l le ge d four c ate gorie s of injury a s a re sult of thebre a c h : (1) lost tim e spe nt re vie wing c onsum e r c re dit re ports, obtaining ne w c re dit c a rds, c he c king fina nc ia l a c c ounts, a

nd a nswe ring a

n inc re a se d num

be r of “ spa

m ” c a lls; (2)
e m otiona l distre ss, inc luding “ stre ss, nuisa nc e , and a nnoy anc e ” from

de a ling with the e ffe c t s of the bre a c h , “ worry , a nxie ty , a nd he s ita t ion” whe n a

pply ing for ne w c re d it c ards, a

nd c onc e rn tha

t “ dam a ge to he r c re ditworthine ss c ould im pa c t he r a bility to obta in c re d i t for he r busine ss” ; (3) “ im m ine nt a nd c e rta inly

im pe nding injury flowing from

pote ntia l fra

ud a nd ide ntity the ft” ; a

nd (4) “ d im inution in
va lue of [he r] pe rsona l a

nd fina nc ia l inform ation.” Pruc hnic ki’ s se c ond a

m e nde d c om

pla int a sse rte d c la im s for ne g lige nc e , bre a c h of im

p lie d c ontra c t , ne glige nt m isre p re se ntation, a nd viola t ion of Ne va da R e vise d Statute s § 41.600 (de c e ptive pra c tic e s ). The distric t c ourt dismisse d a ll
2c la im s with pre judic e . The distric t c ourt found tha t a lthough Pruc hnic k i suffic i e ntly

a lle ge d injury

for sta nding purpose s, he r a sse rte d injurie s did not sta te
a c la im for c om p e nsa b le dam a g e s. The distric t c ourt did not addre ss Pruc hnic ki’ s re que s t for le ave to a

m e nd. 1. R e vie wing de novo, we a ffirm the dism issa l. Se eSonne r v . Pre mie r N utrition C orp. , 971 F.3d 834, 839 (9th C ir. 2020) (re vie wing dismissa l orde r de novo). Although Pruchnic ki a l le ge d suffic ie nt injury -in-fa c t to support sta nding, whe the r the a lle gations a de quat e ly a lle ge d c om pe nsa ble dam a ge s is a

diffe re nt que stion. Se eDoev . C

hao , 540 U.S. 614, 624–25 (2004). Pruc hnic ki c ite s no a uthority re c ogniz ing lost tim

e a s a c ogniz a ble injury for the purpose of
e sta blishing c om

pe nsa ble dam a ge s. And se v e ra l distric t c o urts in this C irc uit ha ve de c line d to re c ogniz e suc h da m a ge s unle ss a c c om

pa nie d by out-of-poc ke t
e xpe nse s . Se e

, e .g. , Huy n h v . Quora, Inc
. , No. 5:18-c v-07597-B LF, 2020 W L 7495097, a

t *10 (N.D. C a l . De c . 21, 2020) (c olle c ting c a se s ). Pruc hnic ki’ s a sse rte d e m otiona l distre ss a lso fa ile d to e sta blish c om p e nsa ble dam a ge s be c a

use , unde r Ne v a da

la w, “ i n the a

bse nc e of phy sic a l im

pa c t, proof of

‘ s e rious e m otiona l distre ss’ c a using phy sic a l injury

or illne s s m

ust be pre se nte d.” Oliv e ro v . Low e , 995 P.2d 1023, 1026 (Ne v. 2000) (c ita

tion omitte d ). Pruc hnic ki did not a sse rt the e xiste nc e of a ny phy s ic a l injury

or illne ss.
3Pruc hnic ki submits tha t she a d e quate ly

a lle ge d dim inution of the va lue of he r pe rsona l inform at ion. W e disa g re e . Although the studie s c i te d by

Pruc hnic ki
e sta blish tha t pe rsona l inform ation m ay hav e va lue in ge ne ra l, Pruc hnic ki fa ile d to
a de quate ly

a lle ge tha

t h e r pe rsona l inform ation a c tua lly lost va lue . Se v e ra l c ourts in this C irc uit ha

ve found, a

nd we a gre e , tha

t the “ m e re m isa

ppropria tion of pe rsona l inform ation” doe s not e sta blish c om pe n sa ble dam a ge s. Se e

, e . g. , In re Google , Inc . Priv ac

y Pol’y Litig. , No. 5:12-c v-001382-PSG, 2015 W L 4317479, a

t *5 n.63 (N.D. C a l. July

15, 2015). Pruc hnic k i did not a sse rt a c la im unde r Ne va da R e vise d Statute s §§ 597.770 a nd 597.790, so a

ny sta tutory dam a ge s a

va i la ble unde r those provisions do not a ffe c t our a

na ly sis. Im

porta ntly , Ne va da

la w doe s not pe rm i t re c ove ry

of spe c u lative dam a g e s. C l ark C nty . Sc h . Dist. v . Ric hardson C onstr., Inc
. , 168 P.3d 87, 97 (Nev. 2007). 2. The distric t c ourt a c te d within its disc re tion in de c lining to c onside r furthe r am e ndm e nt be c a

use furthe r am e ndm e nt would ha ve be e n futile
. Se e W oc hos v . Te

sla, Inc
. , 985 F.3d 1180, 1197 (9th C ir. 2021) (a pply ing a buse of disc re tion sta

nda rd to de nia l of le ave to a

m e nd a nd de novo sta

nda rd to futility
argum e nt). Pruc hnic ki twic e am e nde d he r c om pla int without stre

ngthe ning he r dam a ge s a lle gations. Envision m ove d to dismiss twic e ba se d on Pruc hnic ki’ s de fic ie nt da

m a ge s a lle gat ions. And both be fore the distric t c ourt a nd this C ourt,
4Pruc hnic ki fa ile d to c onvinc ingly artic ulate what inform ation shewould a d d to
c ure he r de fic ie nt da

m a ge s a lle gations. AFFIRM E D
.

5