Case 1:17-md-02800-TWT Document 1221-1 Filed 12/15/21 Page 1 of 50
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`IN RE EQUIFAX, INC. CUSTOMER
`DATA SECURITY BREACH
`LITIGATION
`
`MDL Docket No. 2800
`
`No: 17-md-2800-TWT
`
`CONSUMER CASES
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF EQUIFAX’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS THE OPT-OUT CONSUMER COMPLAINTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-md-02800-TWT Document 1221-1 Filed 12/15/21 Page 2 of 50
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS ................................................................... 3
`
`A. “Commercial Acquiescence” Plaintiffs ................................................. 3
`
`B. Eustice Plaintiffs .................................................................................... 5
`
`C. Plaintiffs Joshpe and Khalaf .................................................................. 7
`
`D. Plaintiff Anna Lee ................................................................................. 7
`
`III.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ........................................................................... 8
`
`IV.
`
`APPLICABLE LAW ..................................................................................... 8
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................... 10
`
`A. Most of the Opt-Out Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Facially Insufficient
`Under Rule 8(a). .................................................................................. 10
`
`B. Contract and Quasi-Contract Claims. ................................................. 13
`
`C. Negligence Claims .............................................................................. 18
`
`D. Plaintiffs’ FCRA Claims Fail Because They Have Not Alleged
`That Equifax “Furnished” a “Consumer Report.” .............................. 29
`
`E. Plaintiffs’ State Statutory Claims Should Be Dismissed. ................... 31
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 37
`
`VI.
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-md-02800-TWT Document 1221-1 Filed 12/15/21 Page 3 of 50
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Advon Corp. v. Coopwood’s Air Conditioning Inc.,
`517 F. Supp. 3d 656 (S.D. Tex. 2021) ................................................................ 32
`
`Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp.,
`919 S.W.2d 644 (Tex. 1996) ........................................................................ 31, 32
`
`Anderson v. Barrow Cty.,
`256 Ga. App. 160, 568 S.E.2d 68 (2002) ........................................................... 23
`
`In re Arby’s Rest. Grp. Inc. Litig.,
`No. 1:17-CV-0514-AT, 2018 WL 2128441 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 5,
`2018) ................................................................................................................... 26
`
`Arrington v. Wells Fargo,
`842 F. App’x 307 (11th Cir. 2020) ..................................................................... 10
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ........................................................................................ 8, 10
`
`Baker v. G4S Secure Sols. (USA) Inc.,
`No. 4:18-CV-267, 2020 WL 5096520 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 28, 2020) ...................... 28
`
`Baylor Univ. v. Sonnichsen,
`221 S.W.3d 632 (Tex. 2007) .............................................................................. 14
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ............................................................................................ 31
`
`Bickley v. Dish Network, LLC,
`751 F.3d 724 (6th Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 30
`
`Bilal v. Geo Care, LLC,
`981 F.3d 903 (11th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................. 8
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-md-02800-TWT Document 1221-1 Filed 12/15/21 Page 4 of 50
`
`
`
`Bildstein v. MasterCard Int’l Inc.,
`329 F. Supp. 2d 410 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) .......................................................... 33, 34
`
`Bradley Center, Inc. v. Wessner,
`250 Ga. 199 (Ga. 1982) .......................................................................... 25, 26, 27
`
`Brooks v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co.,
`107 F. Supp. 3d 1290 (N.D. Ga. 2015) ............................................................... 16
`
`Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.,
`486 U.S. 196 (1988) .............................................................................................. 9
`
`Collins v. Athens Orthopedic Clinic, P.A.,
`307 Ga. 555 (2019) ................................................................................. 19, 22, 23
`
`Columbian Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Carter,
`58 Ga. App. 150 (1938) ...................................................................................... 16
`
`Coon v. Med. Ctr., Inc.,
`300 Ga. 722, 797 S.E.2d 828 (2017) .................................................................... 9
`
`Davis v. Equifax, Inc.,
`No. 2:20CV00094RMGMHC, 2020 WL 7000971 (D.S.C. Sept.
`30, 2020) ............................................................................................................. 15
`
`Department of Labor v. McConnell,
`305 Ga. 812 (2019) ........................................................................... 26, 27, 28, 29
`
`Dibrell Bros. Int’l S.A. v. Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro,
`38 F.3d 1571 (11th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 16
`
`Engram v. Engram,
`265 Ga. 804 (Ga. 1995) ...................................................................................... 17
`
`In re Equifax Inc. Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`No. 1:17-MD-2800-TWT, 2020 WL 256132 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 17,
`2020) ................................................................................................................... 27
`
`In re Equifax, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`362 F. Supp. 3d 1295 (N.D. Ga. 2019) ............................................................... 18
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-md-02800-TWT Document 1221-1 Filed 12/15/21 Page 5 of 50
`
`
`
`Frank Briscoe Co. v. Georgia Sprinkler Co.,
`713 F.2d 1500 (11th Cir. 1983) ............................................................................ 9
`
`Frintzilas v. DirecTV, LLC,
`731 F. App’x 71 (2d Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 35
`
`Frye v. Barbour,
`2017 WL 4226531 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2017) ................................................... 12
`
`Gen. Elec. Co. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc.,
`279 Ga. 77 (2005) ............................................................................................... 20
`
`Glennon v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.,
`83 F.3d 132 (6th Cir. 1996) .................................................................................. 9
`
`Gordon v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
`No. CIV.A. H-12-0528, 2012 WL 1552050 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 30,
`2012) ................................................................................................................... 17
`
`Grinold v. Farist,
`284 Ga. App. 120, 643 S.E.2d 253 (2007) ......................................................... 24
`
`Hamilton v. Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy,
`167 Ga. App. 411, 306 S.E.2d 340 (1983), aff’d, 252 Ga. 149, 311
`S.E.2d 818 (1984) ............................................................................................... 20
`
`Hart v. Hart,
`297 Ga. 709 (2015) ............................................................................................. 14
`
`Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. J.R. Mktg., L.L.C.,
`61 Cal. 4th 988 (2015) ........................................................................................ 18
`
`Harvey v. Merchan,
`860 S.E.2d 561 (Ga. 2021) ................................................................................... 9
`
`Hayes v. Bank of New York Mellon,
`No. 1:14-CV-338-TWT, 2014 WL 3887922 (Thrash, J.) (N.D. Ga.
`Aug. 6, 2014), aff’d, 592 F. App’x 891 (11th Cir. 2015) ................................... 12
`
`Hite v. Anderson,
`284 Ga. App. 156 (2007) .................................................................................... 28
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-md-02800-TWT Document 1221-1 Filed 12/15/21 Page 6 of 50
`
`
`
`Horne v. Equifax Inc.,
`No. 1:17-cv-03713-TWT (N.D. Ga.) .................................................................... 3
`
`Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co.,
`313 U.S. 487 (1941) .............................................................................................. 8
`
`Levine v. World Fin. Network Nat. Bank,
`437 F.3d 1118 (11th Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 29
`
`Marshall v. Hyundai Motor Am.,
`334 F.R.D. 36 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) .......................................................................... 34
`
`McConnell v. Ga. Dep’t. of Lab.,
`No. 2014CV241506, 2015 WL 12551624 (Ga. Super. Oct. 12,
`2015) ................................................................................................................... 28
`
`Murray v. ILG Techs., LLC,
`798 F. App’x 486 (11th Cir. 2020) ............................................................... 21, 27
`
`Patao v. Equifax, Inc.,
`No. CV 19-00677 ................................................................................................ 13
`
`Remax Mountain Co. v. Tabsum, Inc.,
`634 S.E.2d 77 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006), cert. denied ................................................ 20
`
`Ryckeley v. Callaway,
`261 Ga. 828, 412 S.E.2d 826 (1992) .................................................................. 21
`
`Sherman Simon Enterprises, Inc. v. Lorac Serv. Corp.,
`724 S.W.2d 13 (Tex. 1987)................................................................................. 32
`
`Siopes v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.,
`130 Haw. 437 (2013) .......................................................................................... 14
`
`Sitterli v. Csachi,
`344 Ga. App. 671 (2018) .................................................................................... 18
`
`In re Solara Med. Supplies, LLC Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`No. 3:19-CV-2284-H-KSC, 2020 WL 2214152 (S.D. Cal. May 7,
`2020) ............................................................................................................. 36, 37
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-md-02800-TWT Document 1221-1 Filed 12/15/21 Page 7 of 50
`
`
`
`In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`996 F. Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Cal. 2014)................................................................. 37
`
`Steiner v. Mobil Oil Corp.,
`20 Cal. 3d 90 (1977) ........................................................................................... 14
`
`Swayne v. Equifax, Inc.,
`No. 5:19-CV-196, 2019 WL 2494574 (M.D. Ga. June 13, 2019)...................... 14
`
`In re The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,
`No. 1:14-MD-2583-TWT, 2016 WL 2897520 (Thrash, J.) (N.D.
`Ga. May 18, 2016) .............................................................................................. 26
`
`Tiamson v. Equifax, Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-08430-LHK, 2020 WL 3972582 (N.D. Cal. July 14,
`2020) ................................................................................................................... 15
`
`TRO-X, L.P. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp.,
`548 S.W.3d 458 (Tex. 2018) .............................................................................. 16
`
`United States v. Perkins,
`No. 1:10-CR-97-1-JEC-LTW, 2013 WL 3820716 (N.D. Ga. July
`23, 2013), aff’d, 787 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2015) ............................................... 11
`
`Wallace v. Health Quest Sys., Inc.,
`No. 20 .................................................................................................................. 33
`
`Weiss v. Equifax, Inc.,
`No. 20-CV-1460 (BMC), 2020 WL 3840981 (E.D.N.Y. July 8,
`2020) ................................................................................................................... 31
`
`Wells v. Wells,
`197 Ind. 236 (1926) ............................................................................................ 14
`
`Williams v. Equifax, Inc.,
`No. 1:19-CV-622, 2019 WL 3556920 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 5, 2019) ...................... 15
`
`Young v. PNC Bank, N.A.,
`No. 3:16cv298/RV/EMT, 2018 WL 1251920 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 12,
`2018) ................................................................................................................... 11
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-md-02800-TWT Document 1221-1 Filed 12/15/21 Page 8 of 50
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1681a .................................................................................................... 29
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1681b .............................................................................................. 29, 30
`
`15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, o .............................................................................................. 29
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1332 ........................................................................................................ 8
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1798 .............................................................................................. 36
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.82 ..................................................................................... 5, 36
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.82(a) .................................................................................... 36
`
`Fair Credit Reporting Act .......................................................................................... 2
`
`FCRA ................................................................................................................passim
`
`FCRA Section 611 Part (A)(1) ................................................................................ 12
`
`FCRA Sections 1681b and 1681e ...................................................................... 29, 30
`
`FCRA Sections 1681n and 1681o ............................................................................ 29
`
`Federal Trade Commission Act Section 5 ............................................................... 28
`
`N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a) .............................................................................. 7, 33
`
`OCGA § 10-1-393.8(a)(1) ....................................................................................... 26
`
`OCGA § 10-1-910 .............................................................................................. 26, 28
`
`OCGA § 51-12-8 ...................................................................................................... 24
`
`Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. §§ 20.01, 05 ............................................................. 32
`
`Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 20.12 ............................................................... 31, 32
`
`Texas Business and Commerce Code ch. 20 ........................................... 7, 12, 31, 32
`
`UCC .......................................................................................................................... 11
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-md-02800-TWT Document 1221-1 Filed 12/15/21 Page 9 of 50
`
`
`
`Uniform Commercial Code ...................................................................................... 11
`
`Uniform Commercial Code ...................................................................................... 11
`
`Other Authorities
`
`CCC. See Dkt. 540 ............................................................................................... 9, 10
`
`CCC, Dkt. No. 425-1, 8 ............................................................................................. 5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ........................................................................................ 11, 31
`
`Rule 8 ........................................................................................................... 10, 12, 13
`
`Rule 8(a) ......................................................................................................... 1, 10, 31
`
`Rule 8’s .................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) .................................................................................................. 8, 15, 32
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-md-02800-TWT Document 1221-1 Filed 12/15/21 Page 10 of 50
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In this multi-district litigation concerning the data security incident that
`
`Equifax announced on September 7, 2017 (“Data Security Incident”), Equifax and a
`
`nationwide class of consumers reached a settlement resolving the claims of all class
`
`members that were or could have been asserted in this case (“Consumer
`
`Settlement”). But a small number of plaintiffs who filed complaints in this MDL
`
`submitted requests to be excluded from the Consumer Settlement (“Opt-Outs”). In
`
`1
`accordance with the Court’s Case Management Order for Opt-Out Cases,
`
` Equifax
`
`now moves to dismiss the complaints in the twelve Opt-Out Cases remaining in the
`
`MDL (“Opt-Out Complaints”) for the following reasons:
`
`First, the Complaints of Plaintiffs Adams, Cathy Eustice, David Eustice,
`
`Hubbard, Flowers, Edward Hutchinson, Ruby Hutchinson, Patterson, and Silva are
`
`unintelligible and insufficient under Rule 8(a). They merely include a formulaic
`
`recitation of the elements of their so-called “claims,” while failing entirely to allege
`
`facts showing they are entitled to any relief. In addition to failing to sufficiently
`
`plead any cognizable claims, these Plaintiffs’ claims fail for the additional reasons
`
`explained below.
`
`
`1 Under the Case Management Order for Opt-Out Cases (Dkt. 1216, as amended by
`Dkt. 1219), the Opt-Out Plaintiffs have 45 days from the filing of this Motion to
`respond to Equifax’s arguments pertaining to their claims.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-md-02800-TWT Document 1221-1 Filed 12/15/21 Page 11 of 50
`
`
`
`Second, Plaintiffs Adams, Cathy Eustice, David Eustice, Hubbard, Flowers,
`
`Edward Hutchinson, Ruby Hutchinson, Patterson, and Silva cannot recover on their
`
`would-be “contract” claims because they have not alleged mutual assent or facts to
`
`show that any contract was formed between them and Equifax.
`
`Third, Plaintiff Patterson’s unjust enrichment claim should be dismissed, like
`
`the unjust enrichment claim pled in the Consolidated Consumer Class Action
`
`Complaint (“CCC”), because Patterson failed to allege that she conferred a benefit
`
`on Equifax and, even setting that aside, she failed to allege facts to show any
`
`reasonable expectation that Equifax would pay her anything.
`
`Fourth, the negligence claims of Plaintiffs Cathy Eustice, David Eustice,
`
`Hubbard, Joshpe, Khalaf, Lee, and Patterson fail because those Plaintiffs have not
`
`alleged that Equifax owed them a duty cognizable under Georgia law. Nor have
`
`Joshpe and Khalaf alleged proximate cause. Moreover, none of these Plaintiffs has
`
`alleged injuries cognizable in negligence.
`
`Fifth, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) claims of Plaintiffs Cathy
`
`Eustice, David Eustice, Hubbard, Joshpe, Khalaf, Lee, and Patterson should be
`
`dismissed for the same reason this Court previously dismissed similar FCRA claims
`
`pled in the CCC: Plaintiffs failed to allege that Equifax “furnished” a “consumer
`
`report” pertaining to them.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-md-02800-TWT Document 1221-1 Filed 12/15/21 Page 12 of 50
`
`
`
`Sixth, the state statutory claims raised by Plaintiffs Cathy Eustice, David
`
`Eustice, Hubbard, Joshpe, Khalaf, Lee, and Patterson should be dismissed because
`
`they have failed to allege essential elements of their respective claims.
`
`For these reasons and those that follow, the Court should dismiss all the Opt-
`
`Out Complaints with prejudice.
`
`II.
`
`2
`PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS
`
`
`
`A.
`
`“Commercial Acquiescence” Plaintiffs
`
`Plaintiffs Adams, Flowers, Edward Hutchinson, Ruby Hutchinson, Patterson,
`
`and Silva allege an unintelligible “claim” based on what they call Equifax’s
`
`“commercial acquiescence” to a contract (“Commercial Acquiescence Plaintiffs”).
`
`3
`See e.g., Adams Compl. at 8.
`
` Each of the Commercial Acquiescence Plaintiffs
`
`alleges that after the Data Security Incident occurred, they sent Equifax certain
`
`mailings seeking “Request for Proof of [their] Claim,” and stating that if Equifax did
`
`not respond, then its “commercial acquiescence” would constitute an admission of
`
`its liability for the Data Security Incident and an agreement to the terms in those
`
`2
`
`
` Equifax and Opt-Out Plaintiff Ivy Madsen, a named plaintiff in the case of Horne
`v. Equifax Inc., No. 1:17-cv-03713-TWT (N.D. Ga.), have agreed to a settlement.
`Accordingly, Equifax does not address Ms. Madsen’s claims in this Motion.
`
` 3
`
` Citations to the Opt-Out Complaints refer to the page number of the .pdf document
`unless otherwise stated.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-md-02800-TWT Document 1221-1 Filed 12/15/21 Page 13 of 50
`
`
`
`mailings. Id. Thus, because Equifax did not respond to their mailings, Plaintiffs
`
`allege that Equifax’s “non-response and silence” establishes its agreement to the
`
`supposed contract with each Plaintiff. See id. (alleging that “the Defendants have
`
`quietly agreed to all of the facts as outlined in the Notice of Default”). Plaintiffs
`
`further contend Equifax is in “default,” and they seek between $75,000 and $75
`
`million in unspecified damages. See, e.g., Silva Compl. at 4 (seeking $75,000);
`
`Adams Compl. at 5 (seeking $75 million); Flowers Compl. at 5 (seeking $75
`
`million). Plaintiffs Adams, Flowers, Edward Hutchinson, Ruby Hutchinson, and
`
`Silva assert only this “commercial acquiescence” claim, while Plaintiff Patterson
`
`asserts additional claims (discussed below).
`
`With respect to harm, each Plaintiff generally alleges that “the data breach has
`
`affected and injured [them] personally.” See Adams Compl. at 4; Flowers Compl.
`
`at 4; Edward Hutchinson Compl. at 4; Ruby Hutchinson Compl. at 4; Silva Compl.
`
`at 4.
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Patterson
`
`In addition to her “commercial acquiescence” claim, Plaintiff Patterson also
`
`asserts a negligence claim, alleging that Equifax failed to take adequate measures to
`
`prevent the Data Security Incident and to timely notify her after it occurred.
`
`Patterson Compl. at 7. Further, Patterson purports to assert an unjust enrichment
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-md-02800-TWT Document 1221-1 Filed 12/15/21 Page 14 of 50
`
`
`
`claim, alleging that Equifax received an unjust benefit as a result of the Data Security
`
`Incident. While not clear, it appears that Patterson’s unjust enrichment claim is
`
`based on a quote from a U.S. Senator who speculated that Equifax could profit from
`
`an increase in subscribers to paid credit monitoring services as a result of the Data
`
`4
`Security Incident.
`
` Id. at 14-15. Although the quote Patterson relies on suggests
`
`that the “standard rate” of paid credit monitoring services is $17 per month, she does
`
`not allege that she paid Equifax anything for credit monitoring services; nor does
`
`she allege any other benefit she conferred on Equifax. Id. at 15. Finally, Patterson
`
`asserts a claim under California’s data breach notification statute, Cal. Civ. Code §
`
`1798.82, based on Equifax’s allegedly delayed notice of the Data Security Incident.
`
`Id. at 13-14.
`
`Patterson also alleges that she is a “Secured Party/Creditor with Common Law
`
`Copyrights to all her sensitive PII Nunc Pro Tunc.” Id. at 10. She further alleges
`
`that she suffers an “imminent risk of impending identity fraud,” but has not alleged
`
`any actual instances of fraud she has suffered as a result of the Data Security
`
`Incident. Id. at 8.
`
`4
`
`
` As Equifax has previously explained in this MDL, after the Data Security Incident
`occurred, Equifax offered credit monitoring services free of charge to all U.S.
`Consumers—whether their PII had been stolen or not. See Equifax’s Br. Supp. Mot.
`To Dismiss the CCC, Dkt. No. 425-1, 8.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-md-02800-TWT Document 1221-1 Filed 12/15/21 Page 15 of 50
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Eustice Plaintiffs
`
`Three of the Opt-Out Complaints are identical lawsuits originally filed in
`
`Texas state court by Christopher Eustice (who is not an attorney), supposedly on
`
`behalf of himself and his “client[s]” Cathy Eustice, David Eustice, and Travis
`
`Hubbard (“Eustice Plaintiffs” and “Eustice Complaints”).
`
`5
`
` Eustice Compls. Ex. C,
`
`8. Each Plaintiff asserts “Personal Injury Tort Claims” (id. at 16), alleging that the
`
`cybersecurity “vulnerability [exploited in the Data Security Incident] was known for
`
`at least four months” and Equifax’s “fail[ure] to patch [it]” was “preventable” (id. at
`
`6
`4).
`
` All three Plaintiffs allege that their data was “breached” and “compromised” in
`
`the Data Security Incident (id. at 4), but none alleges that anyone has attempted to
`
`fraudulently use their PII. They seek to recover money damages, and damages for
`
`mental anguish on the basis that they are “fearful” of the possibility that their
`
`
`
`5
`
` Although Christopher Eustice purports to be acting as an authorized agent for
`Plaintiffs Cathy Eustice, David Eustice, and Hubbard (Eustice Compls., Ex. C, 6),
`he does not appear to assert claims on his own behalf. In fact, none of the three
`Eustice Complaints alleges that Christopher Eustice’s PII was breached in the Data
`Security Incident. Eustice Compls., Ex. C, 7. But to the extent that the Eustice
`Complaints can be construed as asserting any claims on behalf of Christopher
`Eustice, those claims are subject to dismissal for the same reasons as the claims of
`Plaintiffs Cathy Eustice, David Eustice, and Hubbard.
`
` 6
`
` Without any additional detail in the Complaints regarding the specific tort cause of
`action being asserted, Equifax interprets these as negligence claims.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-md-02800-TWT Document 1221-1 Filed 12/15/21 Page 16 of 50
`
`
`
`identities will be stolen. They also allege violations of an unidentified “oral” and
`
`“written contract,” the FCRA, and unspecified “violations(s) of Texas Business and
`
`Commerce Code ch. 20.” Id. Each Plaintiff seeks $9,975 in money damages. Id.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs Joshpe and Khalaf
`
`The Complaints of Brett Joshpe and Richard Khalaf were filed by the same
`
`law firm, Joshpe Mooney Paltzik LLP, and each asserts claims for negligence and
`
`violations of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a) and the FCRA. Both Plaintiffs claim that
`
`they “suffered financial, emotional, and reputational damages” as a result of the Data
`
`Security Incident. Joshpe Compl. ¶ 49; Khalaf Compl. ¶ 45. Specifically, both
`
`Plaintiffs allege that following the breach, their credit has been damaged, they have
`
`received fraudulent or harassing phone calls or emails, and they have suffered
`
`instances of identity theft such as fraudulent charges on their financial accounts and
`
`fraudulent accounts being opened in their names. See Joshpe Compl. ¶ 25; Khalaf
`
`Compl. ¶ 25. Further, both Plaintiffs seek to recover for lost time they allegedly
`
`spent to mitigate a risk of identity theft. See Joshpe Compl. ¶¶ 26, 16; Khalaf Compl.
`
`¶¶ 26, 16. They each seek money damages of no less than $1 million. See Joshpe
`
`Compl. ¶ 35; Khalaf Compl. ¶ 35.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-md-02800-TWT Document 1221-1 Filed 12/15/21 Page 17 of 50
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiff Anna Lee
`
`Plaintiff Anna Lee asserts claims for negligence, violations of the FCRA, and
`
`violations of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a). Lee Compl. ¶¶ 3, 5, 11, 12. She claims
`
`that she has “spent numerous hours monitoring [her] accounts and addressing issues”
`
`as a result of the Data Security Incident, that she faces an “imminent” risk of identity
`
`theft as a result of the Incident, and that she faces a “significant” risk of incurring
`
`expenses to mitigate that risk. Id. ¶¶ 4, 19. Lee seeks money damages of $25,000.
`
`Id.¶ 23.
`
`III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain
`
`“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible
`
`on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The standard “demands
`
`more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”; mere
`
`“labels and conclusions” or a “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
`
`action will not do.” Id. Further, while courts “liberally construe pro se pleadings,” a
`
`court “cannot act as de facto counsel or rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading to
`
`sustain an action.” Bilal v. Geo Care, LLC, 981 F.3d 903, 911 (11th Cir. 2020).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-md-02800-TWT Document 1221-1 Filed 12/15/21 Page 18 of 50
`
`
`
`IV. APPLICABLE LAW
`
`As the forum state for this MDL, Georgia’s conflict of law rules apply.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Georgia courts generally adhere to the principle of “lex loci delicti” for tort claims,
`
`which requires applying the “law of the place where the tort was committed,” namely
`
`“the place where the injury sustained was suffered.” Harvey v. Merchan, 860 S.E.2d
`
`561, 567 (Ga. 2021). But if the law of the place of injury is foreign law, then Georgia
`
`courts will apply it only if it concerns “statutes and decisions construing those
`
`statutes.” Frank Briscoe Co. v. Georgia Sprinkler Co., 713 F.2d 1500, 1503 (11th
`
`Cir. 1983). “In the absence of a [foreign] statute . . . a Georgia court will apply the
`
`
`
`7
`
` Courts exercising diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 apply the choice of
`law rules of the forum state. Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487,
`496 (1941). Here, Plaintiffs Adams, Flowers, Edward Hutchinson, Ruby
`Hutchinson, Patterson, and Silva invoked the diversity jurisdiction of this Court
`because the parties are completely diverse and the Plaintiffs seek recovery of at least
`$75,000. Adams Compl. at 1-2; Flowers Compl. at 3-4; E. Hutchinson Compl. at 3-
`4; R. Hutchinson Compl. at 3-4; Patterson Compl. at 4; Silva Compl. at 3-4.
`
`The FCRA claims of Plaintiffs Cathy Eustice, David Eustice, Hubbard, Joshpe,
`Khalaf, and Lee, which give rise to federal question jurisdiction, must be decided
`under federal “rules of decision.” Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S.
`196, 198 (1988). However, this Court must apply Georgia’s choice of law rules to
`the state law claims in those Plaintiffs’ Complaints because “[i]n federal question
`cases, a District Court entertaining pendent state claims should follow the choice of
`law rules of the forum state.” Glennon v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 83 F.3d 132,
`136 (6th Cir. 1996).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-md-02800-TWT Document 1221-1 Filed 12/15/21 Page 19 of 50
`
`
`
`common law as expounded by the courts of Georgia.” Coon v. Med. Ctr., Inc., 300
`
`Ga. 722, 729, 797 S.E.2d 828, 834 (2017).
`
`Therefore, Georgia law governs all the Plaintiffs’ common law tort claims.
`
`8
`
`
`
`But their non-Georgia state statutory claims are governed by the laws of the states
`
`that enacted those statutes—i.e., Texas (Eustice Plaintiffs), New York (Plaintiffs
`
`Joshpe, Khalaf, and Lee), and California (Plaintiff Patterson). Id. This is the
`
`approach the Court previously took when ruling on Equifax’s motion to dismiss the
`
`CCC. See Dkt. 540 at 8-9 (“[T]he Court will apply Georgia common law to the
`
`common law claims.”).
`
`V. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Most of the Opt-Out Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Facially Insufficient
`Under Rule 8(a).
`
`As a threshold matter, the Complaints of the Eustice Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs
`
`Adams, Flowers, Edward Hutchinson, Ruby Hutchinson, Patterson, and Silva fail
`
`under Rule 8(a) because they are entirely devoid of any “factual content” and include
`
`only a “formulaic recitation” of the supposed elements of their claims. Ashcroft, 556
`
`U.S. at 678; see Arrington v. Wells Fargo, 842 F. App’x 307, 312 (11th Cir. 2020)
`
`8
`
`
` This Court also applied Georgia law to the breach of contract and unjust enrichment
`claims asserted in the CCC. See Dkt. 540 at 46-54. Regardless, Plaintiffs’
`contractual and quasi-contractual claims here would fail even if the Court applied
`the laws of the Plaintiffs’ states of residence, as shown below.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-md-02800-TWT Document 1221-1 Filed 12/15/21 Page 20 of 50
`
`
`
`(affirming dismissal of pro se complaint under Rule 8 where “complaint contained
`
`allegations that were vague, disorganized, repetitive, and confusing, with no clear
`
`direct connection to each other or to the relevant claims”).
`
`For example, on the pro se complaint forms which instructed them to state the
`
`“facts showing that [they are] entitled to the . . . relief sought,” Plaintiffs Adam