Opinion ID: 2816279
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: mcta

Text: Finally, we address Anzaldua’s argument that it was error for the district court to deny him leave to amend his MCTA claims. In advancing these claims, Anzaldua’s proposed first amended complaint relied on the same factual allegations 8 Other provisions of the SCA, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 2702(a) and 2703(b), protect copies of emails held by remote computing services, which “provi[de] to the public . . . computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communications system.” Id. § 2711(2). 9 Anzaldua argues the district court erred in dismissing his SCA claims in the original complaint. Because those claims suffer the same defect as the SCA claims in the proposed first amended complaint, there was no error. -30- as his SCA claims. He additionally alleged that he owned the Dr. Tan and Holland emails, that Chief Farwell and Welge took and disclosed the emails from a computer, computer system, or computer network, and that Chief Farwell and Welge received, retained, used, or disclosed the emails, which they knew or believed had been obtained in violation of the MCTA. As it did with Anzaldua’s SCA claims, the district court found amendment of Anzaldua’s MCTA claims would be futile because Anzaldua failed to allege unauthorized taking, disclosure, or use of the emails, as required by the MCTA. On appeal, Anzaldua argues he sufficiently alleged such unauthorized conduct. We agree. See Kingman v. Dillard’s, Inc., 643 F.3d 607, 615 (8th Cir. 2011) (“‘When determining the scope of Missouri law, we are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of Missouri. If the Supreme Court of Missouri has not addressed an issue, we must predict how the court would rule, and we follow decisions from the intermediate state courts when they are the best evidence of Missouri law.’” (quoting Eubank v. Kan. City Power & Light Co., 626 F.3d 424, 427 (8th Cir. 2010))). Under the MCTA, a person commits the crime of computer tampering if he “knowingly and without authorization or without reasonable grounds to believe that he has such authorization: . . . (3) Discloses or takes data . . . residing or existing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network; or . . . (6) Receives, retains, uses, or discloses any data he knows or believes was obtained in violation of this subsection.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.095. The statute provides a civil cause of action for “the owner . . . of the . . . data.” Id. § 537.525. Few cases discuss the MCTA, and the ones that do are not relevant here. Nevertheless, for the reasons provided in our discussion of Anzaldua’s SCA claims, we have no difficulty predicting that the Missouri Supreme Court would find that Anzaldua sufficiently alleged Chief Farwell and Welge acted “knowingly and without authorization or without reasonable grounds to believe that [they had] such -31- authorization.” We further find that Anzaldua’s proposed first amended complaint satisfies the other elements of the MCTA because Anzaldua alleged facts supporting that he owned the emails and that Chief Farwell and Welge took and later disclosed the emails, which they knew had been obtained without authorization. Accordingly, we find the district court erred in denying Anzaldua leave to amend his MCTA claims.10