16 results for 'cat:"Privacy" AND cat:"Jurisdiction"'.
J. Saylor grants an athletic trainer, a university and an attorney’s motion to dismiss defamation and invasion of privacy claims brought against them by the university’s former basketball coach, who they had sued for alleged sexual misconduct. Personal jurisdiction is lacking because Indiana is the focal point of the coach’s allegations.
Court: USDC Massachusetts, Judge: Saylor, Filed On: August 15, 2024, Case #: 1:22cv12091, NOS: Assault, Libel, & Slander - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Defamation, privacy, jurisdiction
J. Alonso grants a phone app developer’s motion to dismiss an Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act class action brought by one of the app’s users. The user claims the developer scraped information from his social media accounts, including biometric data from photos, to run its “Magic Avatars” app. However, the court finds it lacks personal jurisdiction over the case, ruling that the user lacks standing to bring his BIPA claims.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Alonso, Filed On: August 6, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv1566, NOS: Other Personal Property Damage - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: privacy, jurisdiction, Technology
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Wilkinson finds the lower court properly dismissed the declaratory judgment action. The news outlet wanted the city to release certain accident reports they believe they are entitled to under North Carolina state law, but the city refused, saying it is prohibited from doing so by a federal privacy statute. The courts lack jurisdiction because the right that the outlet asserted was a state law right, not a federal one. Affirmed.
Court: 4th Circuit, Judge: Wilkinson , Filed On: June 17, 2024, Case #: 23-1796, Categories: Public Record, privacy, jurisdiction
J. Maldonado grants the OnlyFans parent company’s motion to dismiss an Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act class action. OnlyFans, the platform of choice for many subscription-based pornographic content creators, allegedly collected creators’ biometric data via the site’s age verification process. Another user, not a creator, says a paid video featuring him appeared on the site without his consent, after his face was collected by the operator’s AI content review system. Despite these allegations, the court dismisses the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, as the company is incorporated in Delaware and the claims do not arise from its contacts in Illinois.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Maldonado, Filed On: June 5, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv6624, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: privacy, jurisdiction, Technology
J. Jolly finds the district court properly remanded the class action to state court. The data privacy dispute was brought under allegations the healthcare-associated entity embedded tracking pixels onto its website sharing private information with third-party websites. Though the company says it acted under the direction of a federal officer, at least two other circuits have found a hospital does not act under the direction of the federal government when maintaining an online patient portal utilizing tracking pixels. The federal relationship is weak, and the company cannot show that it acted pursuant to a federal officer’s directions for purposes of federal officer removal. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Jolly , Filed On: May 13, 2024, Case #: 23-30522, Categories: Health Care, privacy, jurisdiction
Per curiam, the appellate division finds that the lower court properly dismissed a claim the assistant of a stylist of celebrity Kim Kardashian published a photograph including the claimant without her consent. The claim does not prove that the court has personal jurisdiction over Kardashian or that she continuously conducts business in New York. The same goes for NBC Universal, which was not shown to have deceived or misled the public materially. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: May 9, 2024, Case #: 02514, Categories: privacy, jurisdiction
J. Moss grants the Air Force's motion for summary judgment as to the former employee's Freedom of information Act claim, but declines to dismiss his Privacy Act claim. The documents the employee seeks, related to a medical-malpractice investigation and finding, were produced or compiled for a medical quality assurance program, and are protected from disclosure under a FOIA exemption for such documents. The motion to dismiss the Privacy Act claim on its merits is premature, as the employee has not alleged or shown that he has exhausted his administrative remedies for the claim. He is ordered to show cause as to why the court has subject matter jurisdiction over this claim, so that jurisdictional questions can be litigated.
Court: USDC District of Columbia, Judge: Moss, Filed On: March 31, 2024, Case #: 1:23cv473, NOS: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) - Other Suits, Categories: privacy, jurisdiction, Military
[Consolidated.] J. Chun grants the patients' motion to remand a putative class action alleging that the cancer research institute's negligence allowed hackers to access patient contact information. The institute is based in Washington and the data breach primarily involved Washington patients. Furthermore, three causes of action in the lawsuit are based on Washington statutes and none of the causes of action involve another state's law. Therefore, the discretionary home-state exception to the Class Action Fairness Act applies.
Court: USDC Western District of Washington, Judge: Chun, Filed On: March 22, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv1893, NOS: All Other Real Property - Real Property, Categories: privacy, jurisdiction, Class Action
J. Anello finds that the healthcare system improperly removed a privacy class action under the federal officer removal statute. The private healthcare system's "mere compliance with federal law, rules and regulations is insufficient to invoke federal officer removal." Its participation in a federal program that incentivizes and directs healthcare providers to promote access to medical records online is voluntary and the healthcare system does not argue that it acted as the government's agent when it embedded a tracking tool on its website.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Anello, Filed On: March 19, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv2040, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: privacy, jurisdiction
J. Anello declines to grant preliminary approval of a $350,000 settlement in a class action alleging that the healthcare company failed to take the necessary precautions to prevent a cyberattack and thereby protect the patients' personal health information. The amount in controversy does not exceed the $5 million threshold for federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act and the parties fail to show that minimal diversity exists. Additionally, here is no federal question at issue in this case, so the court lacks jurisdiction.
Court: USDC Southern District of California, Judge: Anello, Filed On: March 14, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv570, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: privacy, jurisdiction, Class Action
J. Bress finds that the district court properly dismissed a class action matter due to lack of specific personal jurisdiction over a company that offers a web-based payment processing platform to merchants. When processing payments, the company obtains the personal information of its customers. There was no relationship between the company's business contacts in California and class members' claims because these contacts did not cause class members' harm. The district court’s denial of a request for jurisdictional discovery was not an abuse of discretion. Affirmed.
Court: 9th Circuit, Judge: Bress, Filed On: November 28, 2023, Case #: 22-15815, Categories: privacy, jurisdiction, Class Action