Case 8:20-cv-00867-PWG Document 40-1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 1 of 35
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
`GREENBELT DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 8:20-cv-00867-PWG
`
`Judge Paul W. Grimm
`
`PATI SPRINGMEYER, an individual and
`Nevada Resident, and JOE LOPEZ, an
`individual and California Resident, on behalf
`of themselves and all others similarly
`situated,
`Plaintiffs,
`v.
`MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
`Montgomery County, Maryland Resident,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Paul B. Rietema (pro hac vice)
`Jenner & Block LLP
`353 N. Clark St.
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`Telephone: (312) 840-7208
`Facsimile: (312) 840-7308
`prietema@jenner.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`David W. DeBruin (Bar No. 07757)
`Lindsay C. Harrison (pro hac vice)
`Zachary C. Schauf (pro hac vice)
`Jenner & Block LLP
`1099 New York Ave. NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20001
`Telephone: (202) 639-6865
`Facsimile: (202) 639-6066
`ddebruin@jenner.com
`lharrison@jenner.com
`zschauf@jenner.com
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00867-PWG Document 40-1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 2 of 35
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................3
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW .............................................................................................................4
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................4
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiffs Lack Article III Standing......................................................................................4
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs Have Not Alleged An Injury-in-Fact. ......................................................4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Absent Misuse, Plaintiffs Cannot Manufacture Standing By
`Claiming “Increased Risk of Identity Theft” Or By Voluntarily
`Spending Money. .........................................................................................5
`
`Plaintiffs Cannot Plead Around Hutton And Beck With Conclusory
`Assertions Of “Diminished Value” Or Lost “Benefit Of Their
`Bargain.” ......................................................................................................7
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs Have Not Alleged That Any Injury Is Fairly Traceable To The
`Conduct Of Which They Complain. ......................................................................11
`
`Plaintiffs Lack Standing For Injunctive Relief ......................................................11
`
`II.
`
`Plaintiffs Fail To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted. ............................12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Common-Law Claims Are Governed By Nevada And California Law. ........12
`
`Plaintiffs’ Negligence And Negligence Per Se Claims Fail. .................................12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs Have Not Pled Negligence Or Negligence Per Se. ....................13
`
`The Economic Loss Doctrine Bars Plaintiffs’ Claims. ..............................14
`
`Negligence Per Se Is Not A Cause Of Action Under California
`Law. ...........................................................................................................15
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Breach Of Contract And Breach Of Implied Contract Claims
`Fail. ........................................................................................................................15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs Have Not Alleged A Breach Of Contract...................................15
`
`Plaintiffs Have Not Alleged A Breach Of Implied Contract. ....................17
`
`D.
`
`The Unjust Enrichment Claim Must Be Dismissed. ..............................................17
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00867-PWG Document 40-1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 3 of 35
`
`E.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Breach Of Confidence Claims Fail. ......................................................18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Springmeyer Fails To State A Nevada Breach Of Confidence
`Claim. .........................................................................................................18
`
`Lopez Fails To State A California Breach Of Confidence Claim. ............19
`
`F.
`
`Lopez Does Not State A California Unfair Competition Law Claim. ...................19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Lopez Lacks Statutory Standing. ...............................................................20
`
`Lopez Has Failed To State An Unfair Competition Law Claim. ...............21
`
`Lopez Does Not State A California Consumer Privacy Act Claim. ......................23
`
`Springmeyer Does Not State A Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act
`Claim. .....................................................................................................................23
`
`A Declaratory Judgment Is Not Appropriate. ........................................................24
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`III.
`
`Plaintiffs Lack Standing To Bring Claims On Behalf Of A Nationwide Class. ................25
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00867-PWG Document 40-1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 4 of 35
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`ACA Financial Guaranty Corp. v. City of Buena Vista, 298 F. Supp. 3d 834
`(W.D. Va. 2018), aff’d, 917 F.3d 206 (4th Cir. 2019) .......................................................24, 25
`
`Aguilar v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., No. CV 18-8123-R, 2019 WL
`2912861 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2019) .........................................................................................14
`
`Alter v. Resort Properties of Am., 130 Nev. 1148 (2014) ........................................................ 15-16
`
`Anderson v. Kimpton Hotel & Restaurant Group, LLC, No. 19-CV-01860, 2019
`WL 3753308 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) .............................................................................11, 13
`
`In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 162 F. Supp. 3d 953 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .......................10, 16
`
`In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litigation, No. 15-MD-02617, 2016 WL 3029783
`(N.D. Cal. May 27, 2016) ..........................................................................................................8
`
`Antman v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 15-cv-01175, 2018 WL 2151231 (N.D.
`Cal. May 10, 2018) ....................................................................................................................6
`
`Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Sols., Inc., 55 Cal. 4th 1185 (2013) .............................................................21
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ............................................................................................4
`
`Atherton Res., LLC v. Anson Res. Ltd., No. 317CV00340MMDCBC, 2019 WL
`78945 (D. Nev. Jan. 2, 2019) ...................................................................................................19
`
`Attias v. CareFirst, Inc., 365 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2019), appeal docketed, No.
`19-7020 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 14, 2019) ....................................................................................10, 17
`
`Bank of Louisiana v. Marriott International, Inc., 438 F. Supp. 3d 433 (D. Md.
`2020) ........................................................................................................................................12
`
`Bank of New York Mellon v. Sierra Ranch Homeowners Ass’n, No. 15CV1914,
`2017 WL 3174904 (D. Nev. July 26, 2017), appeal docketed, No. 17-16713
`(9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2017) ...........................................................................................................24
`
`Beck v. McDonald, 848 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2017) .................................................................. passim
`
`Bishop v. Bartlett, 575 F.3d 419 (4th Cir. 2009) ...........................................................................11
`
`Brett v. Brooks Brothers Group, Inc., No. CV 17-4309, 2018 WL 8806668 (C.D.
`Cal. Sept. 6, 2018)......................................................................................................................6
`
`Carlsen v. GameStop, Inc., 833 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2016) .............................................................10
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00867-PWG Document 40-1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 5 of 35
`
`Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal.
`4th 163 (1999) ..........................................................................................................................21
`
`Certified Fire Protection Inc. v. Precision Construction, 128 Nev. 371 (2012) .....................17, 24
`
`CGM, LLC v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., 664 F.3d 46 (4th Cir. 2011) ................... 24-25
`
`Chambliss v. Carefirst, Inc., 189 F. Supp. 3d 564 (D. Md. 2016) ...............................................7, 8
`
`Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) .........................................................4
`
`Contreras v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 135 F. Supp. 3d 1208 (D.
`Nev. 2015)................................................................................................................................15
`
`Corona v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., No. 14-CV-09600, 2015 WL
`3916744 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2015) ...................................................................................14, 17
`
`Demetres v. East West Construction, Inc., 776 F.3d 271 (4th Cir. 2015) .......................................4
`
`Dolmage v. Combined Insurance Co. of America, No. 14 C 3809, 2017 WL
`5178792 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 8, 2017) .............................................................................................15
`
`Dugas v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., No. 16CV00014, 2016 WL
`6523428 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2016) ...........................................................................................20
`
`Encompass Home & Auto Insurance Co. v. Harris, 93 F. Supp. 3d 424 (D. Md.
`2015) ........................................................................................................................................12
`
`Entertainment Research Group, Inc. v. Genesis Creative Group, Inc., 122 F.3d
`1211 (9th Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................................19
`
`In re Equifax, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, 362 F. Supp. 3d
`1295 (N.D. Ga. 2019) ..............................................................................................................16
`
`In re Experian Data Breach Litigation, No. CV15-1592, 2016 WL 7973595 (C.D.
`Cal. Dec. 29, 2016) ....................................................................................................................8
`
`In re Facebook Privacy Litigation, 572 F. App’x 494 (9th Cir. 2014)......................................8, 20
`
`Frudden v. Pilling, 842 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (D. Nev. 2012), rev’d, 742 F.3d 1199
`(9th Cir. 2014) ..........................................................................................................................18
`
`Gaming v. Trustwave Holdings, Inc., No. 15CV02464, 2016 WL 5799300 (D.
`Nev. Sept. 30, 2016) ................................................................................................................14
`
`Goines v. Valley Community Services Board, 822 F.3d 159 (4th Cir. 2016) ..................................2
`
`Gordon v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 344 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (D. Colo. 2018) ..........................18
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00867-PWG Document 40-1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 6 of 35
`
`In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litigation, 527 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (N.D.
`Cal. 2007) .................................................................................................................................25
`
`Green v. eBay Inc., No. CIV.A. 14-1688, 2015 WL 2066531 (E.D. La. May 4,
`2015) ......................................................................................................................................7, 8
`
`Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776 (4th Cir. 1999) .............................24
`
`Hassan v. Lenovo, No. 18-cv-105, 2019 WL 123002 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 7, 2019).............................25
`
`Hernandez v. Lopez, 180 Cal. App. 4th 932 (2009) ......................................................................17
`
`Hernandez v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. C 18-07354, 2019 WL 2359198 (N.D. Cal.
`June 3, 2019) ............................................................................................................................22
`
`Hutton v. National Board of Examiners in Optometry, Inc., 892 F.3d 613 (4th Cir.
`2018) ..................................................................................................................................1, 5, 6
`
`Irwin v. Jimmy John’s Franchise, LLC, 175 F. Supp. 3d 1064 (C.D. Ill. 2016) ...........................18
`
`Jackson v. Loews Hotels, Inc., No. CV18-827, 2019 WL 6721637 (C.D. Cal. July
`24, 2019) ............................................................................................................................10, 16
`
`Khan v. Children’s National Health System, 188 F. Supp. 3d 524 (D. Md. 2016) .........................7
`
`Kimbriel v. ABB, Inc., No. 19-CV-215, 2019 WL 4861168 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 1,
`2019) ......................................................................................................................................6, 7
`
`Kuhns v. Scottrade, Inc., 868 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2017) ......................................................... passim
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) .............................................................20
`
`Lombel v. Flagstar Bank F.S.B., No. 13-704, 2013 WL 5604543 (D. Md. Oct. 11,
`2013) ..........................................................................................................................................8
`
`Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) ......................................................................4
`
`In re Marriott International, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation., 440
`F. Supp. 3d 447 (D. Md. 2020) ........................................................................................ passim
`
`Mason v. Machine Zone, Inc., 140 F. Supp. 3d 457 (D. Md. 2015), aff’d, 851 F.3d
`315 (4th Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................................................20
`
`Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., No. CV
`GLR-18-3560, 2019 WL 4805677 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2019), appeal docketed,
`No. 19-2233 (4th Cir. Nov. 5, 2019)........................................................................................25
`
`Mireskandari v. Daily Mail & General Trust PLC, No. CV12-02943, 2013 WL
`12114762 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2013) ..........................................................................................15
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00867-PWG Document 40-1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 7 of 35
`
`Mizrahi v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, No. 09-CV-01387, 2010 WL 2521742
`(D. Nev. June 16, 2010) ...........................................................................................................17
`
`Noohi v. Toll Brothers, 708 F.3d 599 (4th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................12
`
`Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal. 4th 811 (2011) .......................................................15
`
`Paz v. California, 22 Cal. 4th 550 (2000) ......................................................................................13
`
`Philip Morris Inc. v. Angeletti, 358 Md. 689 (2000) .....................................................................12
`
`Pruchnicki v. Envision Healthcare Corp., 439 F. Supp. 3d 1226 (D. Nev. 2020),
`appeal docketed, No. 20-15460 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2020) ........................................................14
`
`Reed v. NFL, No. CV 15-01796, 2015 WL 13333481 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2015)........................19
`
`Ruiz v. Gap, Inc., No. 07-5739, 2009 WL 250481 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2009), aff’d,
`380 F. App’x 689 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................20
`
`Ruszecki v. Nelson Bach USA Ltd., No. 12-cv-495, 2015 WL 67509080 (S.D. Cal.
`June 25, 2015) ..........................................................................................................................23
`
`Sanchez ex rel. Sanchez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 125 Nev. 818 (2009) ......................................13
`
`Smith v. MTD Products, Inc., No. CV 19-1592, 2019 WL 5538273 (D. Md. Oct.
`24, 2019) ..................................................................................................................................12
`
`In re Solara Medical Supplies, LLC Customer Data Security Breach Litigation,
`No. 19-CV-2284, 2020 WL 2214152 (S.D. Cal. May 7, 2020) ..............................................15
`
`In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, 903 F.
`Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Cal. 2012) ...............................................................................14, 15, 20, 22
`
`In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, 996 F.
`Supp. 2d 942 (S.D. Cal. 2014), corrected by 2014 WL 12603117 (SD Cal.
`Feb. 10, 2014) ....................................................................................................................15, 17
`
`Stasi v. Inmediata Health Group Corp., No. 19CV2353, 2020 WL 2126317 (S.D.
`Cal. May 5, 2020) ......................................................................................................................6
`
`Tele-Count Engineers, Inc. v. Pacific Telegraph & Telephone Co., 168 Cal. App.
`3d 455 (1985) ...........................................................................................................................19
`
`Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. v. Mandalay Resort Group, 125 Nev. 66
`(2009) .......................................................................................................................................14
`
`In re Vale S.A. Securities Litigation, No. 15-CV-9539, 2017 WL 1102666
`(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2017) ..................................................................................................10, 16
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00867-PWG Document 40-1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 8 of 35
`
`Villa v. Maricopa County, 865 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2017).............................................................23
`
`In re Yahoo! Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 16-MD-02752,
`2017 WL 3727318 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2017) ....................................................................8, 10
`
`In re Zappos.com, Inc., 108 F. Supp. 3d 949 (D. Nev. 2015) ........................................................14
`
`In re Zappos.com, Inc., No. 2357, 2016 WL 2637810 (D. Nev. May 6, 2016),
`rev’d on other grounds, 888 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2018) ..........................................................16
`
`Zaycer v. Sturm Foods, Inc., 896 F. Supp. 2d 399 (D. Md. 2012) ................................................25
`
`Statutes
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq..........................................................................................20
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.81.5(b) .................................................................................................21, 23
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.82 ...............................................................................................................21
`
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150 .............................................................................................................23
`
`Cal. Gov’t Code § 27321.5 ..............................................................................................................1
`
`Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 111.312 .......................................................................................................1
`
`Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915 ............................................................................................................24
`
`Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0923 ............................................................................................................24
`
`Other Authorities
`
`MD R USDCT Civ Rule 102 ...........................................................................................................2
`
`Rule 8 .............................................................................................................................................24
`
`Rule 9(b) ..................................................................................................................................22, 24
`
`Rule 12(b) ........................................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00867-PWG Document 40-1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 9 of 35
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs Pati Springmeyer and Joe Lopez (“Plaintiffs”) bring a nationwide putative class
`
`action against Marriott International, Inc. (“Marriott”) over a recent incident in which “two
`
`employees at a [Marriott] franchise” in Russia “improperly accessed” certain guest information.
`
`First Am. Compl. (“FAC” or “Complaint”) ¶ 23. Plaintiffs do not claim in this case that Marriott’s
`
`systems were “hacked” or left vulnerable to attack by outsiders. Nor do they claim that the
`
`improper access affected social security numbers, credit card information, passport information,
`
`or other similarly sensitive information. Nor, finally, do Plaintiffs allege that the information that
`
`was accessed has actually been used in any way, much less misused. Under these circumstances,
`
`Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to sue—one of several fatal defects in their Complaint.
`
`The Fourth Circuit’s rule is that “a mere compromise of personal information … fails to
`
`satisfy [Article III’s] injury-in-fact element” “in the absence of an identity theft.” Hutton v. Nat’l
`
`Bd. of Exam’rs in Optometry, Inc., 892 F.3d 613, 621 (4th Cir. 2018). This rule enforces the
`
`bedrock principle that federal courts lack jurisdiction when plaintiffs allege only that they may
`
`someday be injured. Only when an injury has occurred, or is “certainly impending,” is there an
`
`Article III “case or controversy.” Beck v. McDonald, 848 F.3d 262, 274-75 (4th Cir. 2017).
`
`Plaintiffs allege no more than “mere compromise.” They do not claim their information (or
`
`anyone’s) has been misused. Nor do they plausibly allege an imminent threat of misuse. The
`
`incident affected only information “such as names, addresses, phone numbers, birthdays, loyalty
`
`information.” FAC ¶¶ 23-24. Such information is often voluntarily disclosed, is widely available
`
`on the internet, and frequently is required to be disclosed by public-records laws.1 Springmeyer’s
`
`
`1 For example, land records containing names and addresses are publicly available. Nev. Rev. Stat.
`Ann. § 111.312; Cal. Gov’t Code § 27321.5. In fact, this Court’s local rules require that the case
`caption on an original complaint “contain the names and addresses of all parties” and that “any
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00867-PWG Document 40-1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 10 of 35
`
`address, for example, is available from Whitepages.com and Fastpeoplesearch.com; her email and
`
`phone number are posted on her own Facebook pages; and her birthday is posted on an art page.2
`
`While Plaintiffs say that in general “personal identifiable information” (or “PII”) can be used to
`
`access “accounts and … effectuate identity theft,” FAC ¶ 42, they allege no facts showing that the
`
`disclosure of the type of PII at issue here creates an imminent risk to these Plaintiffs.
`
`Plaintiffs cannot plead around Hutton and Beck. They insist they are at “increased risk of
`
`fraud and identity theft” and have “pa[id] … for credit monitoring.” FAC ¶¶ 15, 20. Hutton and
`
`Beck, however, rejected identical arguments. Plaintiffs say their information has diminished in
`
`value, and that they lost the benefit of their bargain. Id. But Plaintiffs allege no facts showing that
`
`their “names,” “addresses,” and “birthdays” have decreased in value. Nor do they plausibly allege
`
`that they would have paid less, or not booked, had they known this information was at risk of
`
`improper access by franchise employees (who, after all, generally are expected to access such guest
`
`data for individual bookings). In fact, the very privacy statement Plaintiffs rely upon explains that,
`
`while Marriott “seek[s] to use reasonable … measures,” “no data … system” is “100% secure”
`
`and “compromise[s]” are possible.3 Finding standing here would conflict with not only Hutton and
`
`Beck, but with In re Marriott International, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, 440
`
`F. Supp. 3d 447, 455, 459-60 (D. Md. 2020).
`
`
`pleading seeking to add a new party … contain … the name and address of the parties sought to
`be added,” MD R USDCT Civ Rule 102, though Plaintiffs have failed to comply with this Rule.
`2 https://www.whitepages.com/address/2817-Cotton-Cloud-Rd/Las%20Vegas-NV/3qU6Z4J244
`hdbSsTQhCVr1; https://www.fastpeoplesearch.com/name/pati-springmeyer; https://www.facebo
`ok.com/pati.springmeyer; https://www.facebook.com/seasonalcolorstudio/; https://www.facebo
`ok.com/pg/Bourbon-Couture-1542449762697781/; https://www.deviantart.com/patispringmeyer.
`3 Marriott Group Global Privacy Statement as of Mar. 20, 2020, http://web.archive.org/web/
`20200328180639/https://www.marriott.com/about/privacy.mi. On a motion to dismiss, a court
`may “consider documents that are explicitly incorporated into the complaint by reference.” Goines
`v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 166 (4th Cir. 2016).
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00867-PWG Document 40-1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 11 of 35
`
`Even if Plaintiffs had standing, the Complaint would have to be dismissed because they
`
`have not adequately pled their causes of action. Among many other defects, all Plaintiffs’ claims
`
`fail because they do not plausibly plead what Marriott’s security procedures were or how they
`
`were deficient. The conclusory assertion that Marriott “fail[ed] to implement … reasonable cyber-
`
`security procedures,” FAC ¶ 5, mocks the requirements of Iqbal and Twombly. Finally, any
`
`putative classes would in any event need to be limited to Nevada and California, where Plaintiffs
`
`reside. For these reasons and others, the Complaint must be dismissed.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On March 31, 2020, Marriott notified 5.2 million guests that “two employees at a [Marriott]
`
`franchise” had “improperly accessed” certain information. FAC ¶ 23. Marriott explained it had
`
`discovered “[a]t the end of February 2020” that “an unexpected amount of … information may
`
`have been accessed … start[ing] in mid-January 2020.” Id. ¶ 24. “Upon discovery,” Marriott
`
`“confirmed that the login credentials were disabled, … began an investigation, implemented
`
`heightened monitoring, and arranged resources to inform and assist guests.” Id. ¶¶ 23-24. The
`
`information included contact details like “name, mailing address, [and] email address,” personal
`
`details like “gender, and birthday day and month,” and “[l]oyalty [a]ccount [i]nformation,” such
`
`as “account number and points balance.” Id. Marriott had “no reason to believe” the information
`
`included “passwords or PINs, payment card information, passport information, … or driver’s
`
`license numbers.” Id. Still, Marriott offered “one year of free” monitoring. Id. ¶ 71.
`
`On April 1, 2020, Pati Springmeyer filed this putative class action. Dkt. 1. After Marriott
`
`filed its pre–motion-to-dismiss letter, Dkt. 31, Springmeyer amended and added plaintiff Joe
`
`Lopez. Neither, however, claims their information has been misused. They assert that they suffered
`
`“actual injury” from “increased risk of fraud and identity theft”; from monitoring costs; from their
`
`information’s diminished “value”; and from losing the benefit of their bargain. Id. ¶¶ 15, 20. The
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00867-PWG Document 40-1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 12 of 35
`
`Complaint includes 11 counts. Plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class, claiming
`
`Maryland law governs the common-law claims. Id. ¶ 94. Alternatively, they seek to represent
`
`classes for their states of residence (Nevada for Springmeyer, California for Lopez). Id. ¶¶ 78-79.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`Under Rule 12(b)(1), plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction.
`
`Demetres v. E. W. Constr., Inc., 776 F.3d 271, 272 (4th Cir. 2015). In assessing a Rule 12(b)(1)
`
`challenge to standing, courts accept factual allegations as true but “do not [ ] apply the same
`
`presumption of truth to ‘conclusory statements.’” Beck, 848 F.3d at 270. Under Rule 12(b)(6),
`
`plaintiffs must establish “facial plausibility” by pleading “factual content that allows the court to
`
`draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable”; “[t]hreadbare recitals …, supported
`
`by … conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiffs Lack Article III Standing.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Plaintiffs lack Article III standing. The “irreducible constitutional minimum” of standing
`
`is that a plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact” that is “concrete and particularized” and
`
`“actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Beck, 848 F.3d at 269; see Lujan v.
`
`Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). This injury also must be “fairly traceable” to the
`
`challenged conduct, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l
`
`USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013). Here, Plaintiffs have not pled either injury-in-fact or traceability.
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs Have Not Alleged An Injury-in-Fact.
`
`Plaintiffs do not claim their identities have been stolen, that they suffered fraud, that their
`
`loyalty points have diminished, or that their information has been misused. They sued after
`
`ordinary information—“names, addresses, phone numbers, birthdays, loyalty information,” but not
`
`“passwords …, payment card information, passport information, … or driver’s license numbers”—
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00867-PWG Document 40-1 Filed 08/06/20 Page 13 of 35
`
`was “improperly accessed.” FAC ¶¶ 23-24. This case thus raises the question whether an individual
`
`incurs Article III injury whenever any personal information is accessed without authorization.
`
`In the Fourth Circuit, the answer is clear: “[M]ere compromise of personal information,
`
`without more, fails to satisfy the injury-in-fact element in the absence of an identity theft.” Hutton,
`
`892 F.3d at 621. In Beck, sensitive personal information including “social security numbers” and
`
`“medical diagnoses” was compromised—yet plaintiffs lacked standing because the information
`
`had not been “misused” or led to “identity theft.” 848 F.3d at 267-68, 274. Beck distinguished
`
`cases finding standing in data-breach cases on the ground that “at least one named plaintiff alleged
`
`misuse.” Id. at 274. Hutton considered the opposite situation and found standing because the
`
`plaintiffs alleged not just that “social security numbers … and credit card information” was
`
`“stolen” and “accessed,” but that they had been “used in a fraudulent manner.” 892 F.3d at 622.
`
`Likewise, In re Marriott found standing after this Court concluded that the complaint
`
`“extensive[ly] alleg[ed]” “targeting of” sensitive information including “passport” and “payment
`
`card numbers … for misuse,” and “actual misuse by some” named plaintiffs. 440 F. Supp. 3d at
`
`459. While Marriott disagrees that standing existed in that case, In re Marriott supports dismissal
`
`here—where neither Plaintiff alleges misuse and the information was not sensitive.
`
`Plaintiffs’ several attempts to plead around Beck, Hutton, and In re Marriott each fail.
`
`1.
`
`Absent Misuse, Plaintiffs Cannot Manufacture Standing By Claiming
`“Increased Risk of Identity Theft” Or By Voluntarily Spending Money.
`
`First, Plaintiffs claim that the incident put them at “increased risk of fraud and identity
`
`theft,” and that they spent money to mitigate that risk. FAC ¶¶ 15, 16.
`
`The Fourth Circuit has rejected those exact argume