[00:00:01] Speaker 00:
Case number 16-7108, Chantelle Addias, individually and on behalf of all other similes situated at L Appellants versus Care First, Inc., doing business as Group Possibilization and Medical Services, Inc., doing business as Care First of Maryland, Inc., doing business as Care First Blue Cross Blue Shield, doing business as Care First of Detroit, Inc.

[00:00:24] Speaker 00:
at L. Mr. Nace for the Appellants, Mr. Gatewood for the Appellees.

[00:00:37] Speaker 02:
May it please the court, Jonathan Nace on behalf of the appellants, I'd like to reserve two minutes of time for rebuttal.

[00:00:44] Speaker 02:
Care First promised to protect its customers' data.

[00:00:47] Speaker 02:
In May of 2015, defendants announced that data thieves had stolen from their servers the names, birthdays, email addresses, and account numbers of more than a million consumers.

[00:00:58] Speaker 04:
Mr. Nace, would you please start with jurisdiction?

[00:01:02] Speaker 04:
And in particular, I would really like you to explain why you never addressed our decision in Murray.

[00:01:14] Speaker 04:
We cited Murray in our order asking for supplementary briefs.

[00:01:20] Speaker 04:
We included a key quote from Murray, quote, dismissal of action without prejudice is a final disposition.

[00:01:30] Speaker 04:
while dismissal of complaint without prejudice typically isn't.

[00:01:36] Speaker 02:
If we did not address that thoroughly enough.

[00:01:39] Speaker 04:
You didn't address it at all.

[00:01:40] Speaker 04:
Here we have a court who says to you, we're concerned about our jurisdiction and we cite a case.

[00:01:48] Speaker 04:
Not a peep in your brief about that case.

[00:01:52] Speaker 04:
Now maybe the case is distinguishable, but why wouldn't you have made an effort to tell us why Murray doesn't control this?

[00:02:00] Speaker 02:
We should have your honor.

[00:02:02] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:02:03] Speaker 04:
Would you like to now explain that?

[00:02:05] Speaker 02:
Well, I think in this case, the district court dismissed the entire case, which is what I thought.

[00:02:11] Speaker 04:
Excuse me.

[00:02:12] Speaker 04:
In the district, the district court here dismissed the complaint.

[00:02:17] Speaker 04:
In serenity, they dismissed the action here.

[00:02:20] Speaker 04:
The district court dismissed complaint.

[00:02:24] Speaker 02:
And I know your honor is obviously correct that that's the words he used.

[00:02:30] Speaker 02:
But as we stated in our supplemental brief, and I think as the appellees agree, the district court was dismissing the action in the form of there was nothing else that could have been done.

[00:02:41] Speaker 02:
There was nothing else that we could have

[00:02:42] Speaker 05:
Well, there were suggestions in Judge Cooper's opinion that there were things that you could have done, that you could have pled with greater specificity on the chain of inferences, right?

[00:02:55] Speaker 05:
You could have pled Social Security numbers were stolen or credit card numbers.

[00:03:02] Speaker 02:
We did address the social security numbers.

[00:03:04] Speaker 02:
We moved for discovery on that point.

[00:03:06] Speaker 02:
We moved to have some subject matter jurisdiction.

[00:03:09] Speaker 02:
And actually, in the district court's order, he denied that motion.

[00:03:13] Speaker 02:
And in his footnote, he said, look, I am agreeing with the affidavit that was submitted.

[00:03:17] Speaker 02:
Social security numbers were not taken.

[00:03:19] Speaker 02:
And he ruled on that, that he agreed that they had not been and accepted that fact of the defendant.

[00:03:24] Speaker 02:
So I don't think we could have

[00:03:27] Speaker 02:
then pled that they were without drawing the ire of the district court.

[00:03:32] Speaker 04:
You see, I read the opinion the same way Judge Griffith did.

[00:03:37] Speaker 04:
It looked to me like there were several places in which the district court wasn't saying you might not ever have seen it.

[00:03:46] Speaker 04:
He was just saying

[00:03:48] Speaker 04:
record wasn't sufficient.

[00:03:49] Speaker 04:
Here, I'll give you an example.

[00:03:52] Speaker 04:
He says at one point, plaintiff failed to explain how identity theft could happen without stolen social security numbers or credit card numbers.

[00:04:02] Speaker 04:
Okay?

[00:04:03] Speaker 04:
He didn't say identity theft couldn't happen.

[00:04:06] Speaker 04:
He said you hadn't explained it.

[00:04:09] Speaker 04:
just that you hadn't explained it.

[00:04:12] Speaker 04:
You could have simply easily done that by filing an amended complaint saying what your amicus does, which explains how identity theft can happen.

[00:04:26] Speaker 02:
I took that as, Your Honor, I took that as we hadn't explained it adequately or in a way that he was accepting.

[00:04:31] Speaker 02:
Well, where do you see that?

[00:04:33] Speaker 02:
Well, he did not state that it wasn't adequate, but what he said was they haven't explained it.

[00:04:40] Speaker 02:
And we took that as...

[00:04:42] Speaker 02:
I don't agree with you, because we definitely pled and we argued in our opposition that this is a real risk of harm that can happen, that identity theft happens from what has been lost here.

[00:04:55] Speaker 02:
And this is years of surveillance and monitoring that the plaintiffs have to go through here.

[00:05:00] Speaker 02:
And so I thought we presented that to him, and he ruled that we cannot explain.

[00:05:05] Speaker 04:
Why do you think he dismissed your complaint without prejudice?

[00:05:08] Speaker 02:
Because it was a 12-B-1 issue.

[00:05:10] Speaker 02:
Without prejudice.

[00:05:12] Speaker 02:
Yes, because it was a 12-B-1 issue that he did not reach the merits and he did not get it.

[00:05:17] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:05:18] Speaker 04:
That's why he dismissed it without prejudice.

[00:05:20] Speaker 04:
Because on the record, this is the way I read it, on the record before him, he just didn't think you had satisfied.

[00:05:26] Speaker 04:
I thought, it looked to me like he was giving you another shot at it.

[00:05:30] Speaker 02:
I did not presume that, and I didn't think the appellees presumed that either.

[00:05:35] Speaker 05:
It appeared to me that... Well, it's not the appellees who have to presume it.

[00:05:38] Speaker 05:
It's your case.

[00:05:40] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:05:40] Speaker 05:
And what you and the appellees agree to on jurisdiction isn't binding on us, right?

[00:05:44] Speaker 05:
We have to satisfy ourselves.

[00:05:45] Speaker 04:
I'll give you another example.

[00:05:47] Speaker 04:
He says, the district court says, with the exception of two plaintiffs, non-allege that they suffered actual identity theft.

[00:05:56] Speaker 04:
And then in footnote four, he says,

[00:05:59] Speaker 04:
Although plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss asserts that many plaintiffs have already suffered identity theft, credit fraud, et cetera, and the victims of the breach other than the triggers have, the complaint contains no factual allegations to support those.

[00:06:18] Speaker 04:
So he's saying, look, they're in your complaint, they're in your motions, but they're not in the complaint.

[00:06:23] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry, they're in your motions, but they're not in the complaint.

[00:06:27] Speaker 04:
That tells me that he's saying, amend your complaint and put him in.

[00:06:31] Speaker 02:
But we asked for jurisdiction to be able to do that.

[00:06:36] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, for jurisdictional discovery to be able to do that.

[00:06:39] Speaker 04:
So let me go back to the first question I asked you about Murray.

[00:06:46] Speaker 04:
You agree with me that here, as in Murray, the complaint, not the action was dismissed.

[00:06:53] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry.

[00:06:53] Speaker 04:
I just the complaint was dismissed without prejudice, not the action.

[00:06:58] Speaker 04:
Same case.

[00:06:59] Speaker 04:
And we said in Murray, that's not a final appeal of order.

[00:07:04] Speaker 04:
So now tell us how you would distinguish Murray.

[00:07:11] Speaker ?:
Yeah.

[00:07:11] Speaker 02:
The way we distinguish Murray is that there was no facts that we could have added, that we could have further alleged that would have changed the pleadings in this case.

[00:07:21] Speaker 04:
You see, the position you're putting us in here by taking that position is you're asking us now to decide whether there was any additional information you could have pleaded that would have satisfied the district court.

[00:07:34] Speaker 04:
You had a totally simple solution to this problem.

[00:07:37] Speaker 04:
If you didn't think you could have done anything further, you could have gone back to the district court and asked him to enter a final appeal of order.

[00:07:45] Speaker 04:
And then we wouldn't have wasted all of our time here.

[00:07:50] Speaker 02:
Well, I did not foresee that because I did not read the order that way.

[00:07:54] Speaker 02:
I read the order as

[00:07:55] Speaker 02:
a dismissal of the argument?

[00:07:58] Speaker 04:
Well, had you read Murray, Murray was the law of the circuit at the time.

[00:08:03] Speaker 04:
And Murray says dismissals of a complaint without prejudice are not final orders.

[00:08:11] Speaker 04:
That's the law of the circuit.

[00:08:13] Speaker 02:
But clearly, other law says that dismissals on subject matter jurisdiction are final, appealable orders, which is what we had here.

[00:08:20] Speaker 02:
And that's what we were proceeding on.

[00:08:22] Speaker 04:
Well, the question is, do we have, certainly, if it's dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, it's appealable.

[00:08:29] Speaker 04:
The question I'm asking you, and Judge Griffith is asking you, is if you look at this order and the way the court handled it, it doesn't look like it's a final dismissal for jurisdictional purposes yet.

[00:08:42] Speaker 04:
It hasn't gotten there.

[00:08:44] Speaker 04:
He didn't even remove it from his active docket.

[00:08:51] Speaker 02:
I read the order as a final appeal.

[00:08:56] Speaker 05:
Is your argument sort of a futility argument that you had already explored the avenues or tried to explore the avenues that would lead to an amendment of the complaint along these lines and that the judge had denied you that, so therefore

[00:09:14] Speaker 05:
you're understanding of that combined with the order is that, uh, he wasn't inviting amendment argument is that these plaintiffs did not have any additional facts to add.

[00:09:26] Speaker 02:
There's no one else to say

[00:09:28] Speaker 02:
this many people have suffered identity theft or two other plaintiffs have suffered identity theft as well.

[00:09:37] Speaker 02:
We had alleged everything that we could have alleged.

[00:09:40] Speaker 01:
What about being explicit about your belief that social security numbers were taken?

[00:09:47] Speaker 01:
It's in there, but it seems as though the district court

[00:09:52] Speaker 01:
wasn't reading your complaint the same way you were reading your complaint.

[00:09:55] Speaker 01:
So that's the type of thing that's easily fixed by having an explicit thing that says, we allege that, among other things, Social Security numbers were taken.

[00:10:05] Speaker 01:
And some of the other things that Judge Taylor referenced, and here is the, not just a vague harm, but explicitly here's the harm

[00:10:12] Speaker 01:
that we're worried about from the information, the type of information that was taken, here's why it creates a substantial risk in our client's view of identity theft or medical fraud that they'll be responsible for.

[00:10:28] Speaker 01:
Is there anything

[00:10:31] Speaker 02:
Well, as to the social security numbers, I mean, we did address that in our supplemental brief, that he ruled that they were not taken based upon the affidavit that was submitted by the defendant.

[00:10:42] Speaker 02:
And he denied our request to depose that witness.

[00:10:46] Speaker 02:
As to harm, I mean, we did allege harm in the form of mitigation expenses, in the form of increased risk of fraud.

[00:10:55] Speaker 02:
All of these additional harms were alleged in the complaint.

[00:10:58] Speaker 02:
And he ruled that they were not sufficient under Article III.

[00:11:01] Speaker 01:
I believe we did.

[00:11:08] Speaker 02:
I believe so, Your Honor, yes.

[00:11:14] Speaker 02:
And I know we allege that the Tringlers

[00:11:17] Speaker 01:
that we want to see if there are some for tax refunds that's that that that that that that that that that that that that that that that

[00:11:33] Speaker 01:
It could be more directly alleged.

[00:11:35] Speaker 01:
And so the district court saw it differently.

[00:11:39] Speaker 01:
And that's easily fixed.

[00:11:41] Speaker 01:
And then that takes care of the district court's concern about social security numbers.

[00:11:46] Speaker 01:
That links up when you make that direct allegation.

[00:11:49] Speaker 01:
If you can, assuming you can, on a good faith basis here, make that allegation, and that will link up to the tax refund card.

[00:11:57] Speaker 01:
Because he didn't see the direct allegation, and then from that didn't see what the connection was to tax refund card.

[00:12:03] Speaker 01:
But when you have that, again, I see the words in your complaint, but it's not as direct as a specific

[00:12:13] Speaker 02:
I agree that's true with social security numbers.

[00:12:18] Speaker 02:
Again, when the district court ruled in his memo, in his memorandum of opinion that social security numbers were not taken, we were hesitant to tell him they were when he had already ruled at that point that they were not.

[00:12:33] Speaker 04:
Okay, we'll hear from the other side.

[00:12:43] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:12:47] Speaker 06:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:12:48] Speaker 06:
On behalf of the care of first appellees, Matt Gatewood, may it please the Court.

[00:12:54] Speaker 06:
Your Honors, I'm happy to start with the jurisdictional question.

[00:12:56] Speaker 06:
If you prefer, I can go right into it.

[00:12:59] Speaker 04:
Well, do you have any?

[00:13:00] Speaker 04:
I mean, you filed a brief saying you thought we had jurisdiction.

[00:13:03] Speaker 06:
That's right, and I do, because if you look at, I think the situation is very different than, assume we had just filed, for example, a 12b6 motion.

[00:13:11] Speaker 04:
Why do you, I mean, well, never mind.

[00:13:14] Speaker 04:
Go ahead.

[00:13:15] Speaker 04:
Just curious about your strategy, but I won't ask you that.

[00:13:17] Speaker 04:
Go ahead.

[00:13:19] Speaker 06:
The district court, if it decides a 12b6 motion, goes to the merits of the case, for example.

[00:13:25] Speaker 06:
So the words with prejudice, without prejudice, those matter in that situation.

[00:13:29] Speaker 06:
Because the district court, if they decide merits without prejudice, certainly it's an invitation to replete the complaint.

[00:13:36] Speaker 06:
But when the district court is, as a threshold matter, determining its subject matter jurisdiction, it is making a decision that it cannot reach the merits.

[00:13:44] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:13:44] Speaker 04:
But the question we were asking counsel was, we totally agree with you about that.

[00:13:51] Speaker 04:
The question is, had the district court actually reached that decision?

[00:13:56] Speaker 04:
He dismissed it without prejudice.

[00:13:57] Speaker 04:
He didn't remove it from his docket.

[00:13:59] Speaker 04:
And his opinion is full of statements like plaintiffs have failed to prove or fail to explain or fail to do this.

[00:14:07] Speaker 04:
So it doesn't look like, from what we have here, that this district judge had gotten to the point where he had, in his mind, dismissed the case for jurisdictional reasons.

[00:14:17] Speaker 06:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:14:18] Speaker 06:
But these repellents have relied and stood on their complaint.

[00:14:22] Speaker 06:
They did not file a Rule 59 motion with the district court with a motion with leave to amend the complaint.

[00:14:28] Speaker 06:
They instead chose to appeal the action as they treated it as a final appeal of the order.

[00:14:32] Speaker 04:
But they can't.

[00:14:33] Speaker 04:
The plaintiffs can't buy their actions.

[00:14:35] Speaker 04:
Convert an unappealable order into an appeal of the work you agree with that.

[00:14:40] Speaker 06:
I agree with that.

[00:14:40] Speaker 04:
Okay, and we have murray The only reason to do the only possible basis for distinguishing murray You've actually put your finger on it.

[00:14:48] Speaker 04:
Is it here?

[00:14:49] Speaker 04:
The dismissal was for jurisdictional reasons, right?

[00:14:52] Speaker 04:
That's right sorowski and murray deal with the merits but the fact is that still weaves open the question of whether what the district court intended here and

[00:15:02] Speaker 06:
Your honor, in their supplemental briefing to this court, appellants have said, I think in three instances, that there are no additional allegations that can add to their complaint to cure what the district court said was deficient.

[00:15:16] Speaker 04:
They're telling us that, right?

[00:15:20] Speaker 04:
They couldn't have simply said to the district court, Your Honor, thanks for the dismissal without prejudice, but we can't satisfy your standard, and we want to appeal in our final order.

[00:15:31] Speaker 06:
But they did by not filing a Rule 59 motion and instead filing their appeal.

[00:15:37] Speaker 06:
The core of this issue, Your Honor, is that... Did you object to them?

[00:15:40] Speaker 01:
They went back and wanted to file a third amendment complaint?

[00:15:43] Speaker 01:
Did you object to that?

[00:15:44] Speaker 01:
Just to address this issue and make it concrete for both all the parties in the district court?

[00:15:51] Speaker 06:
The problem with that is that they've yet to explain any concrete injury.

[00:15:57] Speaker 06:
and a federal court pointed to him.

[00:16:00] Speaker 01:
You would reserve full rights to disagree.

[00:16:03] Speaker 01:
I'm just asking as a procedural matter, given the status, would you object to them filing a third amended complaint and then we can get a clear ruling from the district court on whether it really was done or whether

[00:16:16] Speaker 01:
just need a little more explication or specific.

[00:16:20] Speaker 06:
I think your honor is there's an interim step that could case could be remanded to the district court for explanation as to whether it was a final and appeal of border.

[00:16:30] Speaker 06:
If this court is just looking for the words final and appealable and the district court did in fact deem that dismissal final and appealable order, I think that would be more appropriate.

[00:16:39] Speaker 01:
Would you object to filing a third amendment complaint just as a procedural matter?

[00:16:43] Speaker 01:
I'm not saying you will agree that it

[00:16:45] Speaker 01:
I understand it.

[00:16:49] Speaker 06:
If the court determines it does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, then that would be the next course.

[00:16:56] Speaker 01:
No, he's not answering my question.

[00:16:58] Speaker 04:
Yeah.

[00:16:58] Speaker 04:
You know, I don't understand your argument that they haven't shown any harm.

[00:17:01] Speaker 04:
I mean, this case is very different from Clapper.

[00:17:04] Speaker 04:
Here, the data has been stolen, intentionally stolen.

[00:17:09] Speaker 04:
It's in the hands of somebody who obviously wouldn't have stolen it had they not intended to use it.

[00:17:16] Speaker 04:
It just doesn't seem to me at all speculative under these circumstances to say that they have standing.

[00:17:22] Speaker 06:
But the harm they're alleging is a harm based on a future fear of injury.

[00:17:29] Speaker 04:
Right.

[00:17:30] Speaker 06:
But it's not a speculative one.

[00:17:32] Speaker 04:
These people stole all his data.

[00:17:35] Speaker 04:
Yes, your honor.

[00:17:35] Speaker 04:
And at the time of the complaint was stolen, and obviously, I assume they didn't steal it just to collect it.

[00:17:41] Speaker 04:
They stole it to use it, right?

[00:17:43] Speaker 04:
Here's the problem, your honor.

[00:17:44] Speaker 06:
Not one plaintiff has explained why any single piece of information that they allege was compromised.

[00:17:53] Speaker 06:
has caused them harm or will cause them harm.

[00:17:56] Speaker 06:
They have not alleged that.

[00:17:57] Speaker 06:
And they have not alleged how any of that data is fairly traceable.

[00:18:01] Speaker 05:
Is that right?

[00:18:02] Speaker 05:
In paragraphs 51 and 54 of the Second Amendment Complaint, they allege that identity theft from stealing medical information will harm them.

[00:18:09] Speaker 05:
They have alleged that.

[00:18:10] Speaker 05:
It will harm them.

[00:18:12] Speaker 05:
And they haven't alleged that a clapper

[00:18:16] Speaker 05:
the inquiry is substantial risk, right?

[00:18:19] Speaker 05:
And so we're supposed to determine, have they alleged a substantial risk of harm?

[00:18:24] Speaker 05:
And I don't see how they haven't.

[00:18:25] Speaker 06:
They haven't for three reasons, Your Honor.

[00:18:27] Speaker 06:
The first is the type of data that they alleged was stolen.

[00:18:31] Speaker 06:
Email addresses, names, birthdays, subscriber identification numbers.

[00:18:35] Speaker 06:
That's it.

[00:18:36] Speaker 06:
Second, it's been almost three.

[00:18:38] Speaker 05:
What's insufficient about that?

[00:18:39] Speaker 06:
But it's not.

[00:18:43] Speaker 06:
It's excuse me.

[00:18:44] Speaker 06:
It's sufficient if they can take any piece of that information and then explain why they're harmed, but they had not done that.

[00:18:51] Speaker 06:
They haven't explained how it's possible to be harmed in the future based on those pieces of information, just like the Supreme Court said and spoke to you.

[00:19:00] Speaker 01:
But that list comes from the Hauser Declaration that you just gave.

[00:19:05] Speaker 01:
And the Hauser Declaration doesn't say that's an exhaustive list.

[00:19:08] Speaker 01:
He says what was taken from these tables included

[00:19:13] Speaker 01:
those things.

[00:19:14] Speaker 01:
It doesn't tell us what else it included.

[00:19:17] Speaker 01:
And nothing in the Hauser Declaration actually says, all it says is that social security numbers and health information weren't in the CIN database, but I see no specific statement by Mr. Hauser that the other databases were not compromised and that other information was not taken.

[00:19:34] Speaker 01:
In fact, that careful choice of included suggests that either

[00:19:39] Speaker 01:
you all don't know exactly how much was taken, or we're not being told everything.

[00:19:43] Speaker 01:
We're only told about one computer getting into one database without any exclusion of other information.

[00:19:49] Speaker 01:
So why do they, at the complaint stage, have to accept your description, which is not your entire description, and then argue off of that?

[00:20:00] Speaker 06:
They don't, Your Honor, and I don't need the declaration for this argument.

[00:20:04] Speaker 06:
The district court even said that they had not alleged, for example, that their Social Security numbers were stolen.

[00:20:10] Speaker 01:
No, they do.

[00:20:10] Speaker 01:
They absolutely say Social Security numbers.

[00:20:12] Speaker 01:
They absolutely do.

[00:20:13] Speaker 06:
They say it's possible.

[00:20:14] Speaker 01:
They say that they included Social Security numbers, and then they say we suffered tax refund fraud, which requires use of a Social Security number.

[00:20:22] Speaker 01:
This is a complaint stage.

[00:20:23] Speaker 01:
We're not at the summary judgment stage here.

[00:20:25] Speaker 06:
I understand that, but they still have to establish, they don't have to establish, they have to plausibly state each claim of standing.

[00:20:34] Speaker 06:
And based upon the current complaint, they do not do that.

[00:20:37] Speaker 01:
What's implausible when they say that you don't deny that you guys collected social security numbers, that you had their social security numbers, there's no denial of that, and that your databases were broken into,

[00:20:49] Speaker 01:
And they say, you had all this information on us.

[00:20:54] Speaker 01:
And it was taken.

[00:20:55] Speaker 01:
Information was taken.

[00:20:57] Speaker 01:
And we believe it was Social Security numbers, because look what happened right after that.

[00:21:03] Speaker 01:
We had a tax refund fraud.

[00:21:05] Speaker 01:
Why is that not a sufficient allegation?

[00:21:07] Speaker 06:
Your Honor, I disagree that they have alleged that Social Security numbers were stolen.

[00:21:11] Speaker 06:
The district court also disagrees with that.

[00:21:15] Speaker 05:
What do you make of their claims that there are statutory violations, consumer protection violations?

[00:21:21] Speaker 05:
Under Spokeo, that's a pretty relaxed standard, isn't it?

[00:21:25] Speaker 06:
Well, it still requires a concrete harm.

[00:21:27] Speaker 06:
And that concrete harm can be tangible or intangible, as this court has also said in Hancock, which was decided shortly after Spokeo.

[00:21:34] Speaker 06:
And because the risk of harm that they present is not substantial, so the risk of harm, when viewed under the framework that the Supreme Court reiterated in Clapper,

[00:21:47] Speaker 06:
That's how you're viewing this alleged intangible harm.

[00:21:50] Speaker 06:
If it's not substantial, it can't be a concrete injury for purposes of attaching to a statutory violation in order to confer standing when that statutory violation itself doesn't work.

[00:22:01] Speaker 05:
So is your argument, if we don't feel there is substantial harm, Spokio is of no help to them, right?

[00:22:07] Speaker 06:
That's right.

[00:22:07] Speaker 06:
That's exactly right.

[00:22:09] Speaker 06:
They argue their standing, they say three issues of standing in their statement of issues in their, in the imbalance brief.

[00:22:17] Speaker 06:
One is the mitigation damages, one is the fear of future identity theft, and the third is the statutory violations combined with a concrete harm.

[00:22:27] Speaker 06:
In the lower court, they actually said that the statutory violation itself

[00:22:32] Speaker 06:
converse standing.

[00:22:33] Speaker 01:
I don't understand the injury had to be concrete to prove your damages at the complaint stage.

[00:22:39] Speaker 06:
That's absolutely right.

[00:22:39] Speaker 06:
There has to be a fact of injury.

[00:22:42] Speaker 01:
If I were to go into segue rental place and give them and they said while you're using the segue, you have to leave your driver's license here.

[00:22:56] Speaker 01:
And then they someone's they're negligent with it.

[00:23:00] Speaker 01:
laid out on the sidewalk.

[00:23:01] Speaker 01:
Someone steals that driver's license.

[00:23:04] Speaker 01:
Have I been injured?

[00:23:05] Speaker 01:
Someone steals my driver's license.

[00:23:08] Speaker 01:
Have I been injured?

[00:23:11] Speaker 06:
Possibly.

[00:23:12] Speaker 01:
Possibly.

[00:23:12] Speaker 01:
Have I been injured?

[00:23:14] Speaker 01:
If you can... I'm not injured unless someone does something bad with my driver's license.

[00:23:17] Speaker 01:
Until then, I'm just not injured.

[00:23:19] Speaker 06:
Well, this is very different than like a Fair Credit Reporting Act situation where there's

[00:23:24] Speaker 06:
an obligation to not to disclose certain information.

[00:23:28] Speaker 06:
There's no allegation in the complaint that Care First disclosed any information.

[00:23:32] Speaker 01:
No, it was stolen.

[00:23:33] Speaker 01:
So it was stolen.

[00:23:34] Speaker 01:
They would say that they will say, and I'm not suggesting this is true or not one way or the other, was that I assume that Care First was negligent in its handling of their information.

[00:23:44] Speaker 01:
And if I were to say the same thing about the segue dealer, they were negligent because they left license plates out on the sidewalk.

[00:23:51] Speaker 01:
and it was stolen.

[00:23:52] Speaker 01:
Have I can I sue them?

[00:23:53] Speaker 01:
I've been injured.

[00:23:54] Speaker 01:
My license was taken because of their negligence.

[00:23:57] Speaker 06:
You can allege that the law gives you confers on you a right to that information.

[00:24:05] Speaker 06:
And then you can assert a deprivation of that right.

[00:24:08] Speaker 01:
That's that's the definition of injury.

[00:24:10] Speaker 01:
As I left the driver's license with them, they were negligent handling it and someone stole it.

[00:24:20] Speaker 01:
If I've been injured.

[00:24:23] Speaker 06:
If you can explain that in your complaint to a federal court that you had a legally protected right that it was then deprived.

[00:24:32] Speaker 01:
Do I have my driver's license stolen through their negligence?

[00:24:36] Speaker 01:
That's my allegation.

[00:24:38] Speaker 06:
If you believe that you have a legally protected right to that information in the driver's license, then you can make out a federal court complaint.

[00:24:46] Speaker 06:
I think a driver's license information on a driver's license is very different than the information that they alleged was taken here.

[00:24:56] Speaker 04:
Anything else?

[00:24:57] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:24:57] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:24:57] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:24:59] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:24:59] Speaker 04:
Uh, did Mr Nathan anytime left?

[00:25:03] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:25:03] Speaker 04:
You can have two minutes.

[00:25:10] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:25:12] Speaker 02:
First of all, I believe it was Judge Millett.

[00:25:14] Speaker 02:
The mitigation expenses were pled on appendix page 5, paragraph 19, with specificity.

[00:25:23] Speaker 02:
Your Honor touched on the difference between this case and Clapper, and I just want to say very quickly, Your Honor is absolutely right.

[00:25:28] Speaker 02:
I mean, this is nothing like the Clapper situation.

[00:25:31] Speaker 02:
And the reason it's not like that is, in Clapper, none of the plaintiffs could have alleged that they had had a legal interest that had already been invaded.

[00:25:40] Speaker 02:
They were speculating that at some point in the future, their legal interest would be invaded by the conduct of what was happening to other people.

[00:25:49] Speaker 05:
But in this case, when the data breach occurred... What's your theory of standing under Spokeo?

[00:25:57] Speaker 02:
I'm sorry, I just didn't hear it.

[00:25:59] Speaker 05:
What's your theory of standing under Spokio?

[00:26:01] Speaker 02:
Under Spokio.

[00:26:01] Speaker 02:
So Spokio is a case regarding what they call a purely procedural violation of a statutory right.

[00:26:09] Speaker 02:
And what Spokio said was that is not in and of itself enough, but it can be enough if additional harms are confronted with that.

[00:26:19] Speaker 05:
So what are your additional harms?

[00:26:21] Speaker 02:
Additional harms include mitigation expenses and risk of future injury, future identity theft.

[00:26:29] Speaker 02:
But this case is different from that.

[00:26:31] Speaker 02:
This circuit, in your honor, has already stated that in DC, the DC consumer protection provides a substantive right to be free from deceptive trade practices.

[00:26:41] Speaker 02:
And that, from Worth all the way through Spokeo, those substantive rights, violations of them, can confer standing on their own.

[00:26:48] Speaker 05:
But in your briefs, I only found reference to the invasion of privacy tort.

[00:26:53] Speaker 05:
I didn't see.

[00:26:54] Speaker 05:
In your complaint, you talk generally about fraud and breach of contract.

[00:27:00] Speaker 05:
But not in your briefs.

[00:27:01] Speaker 05:
Did you abandon those arguments?

[00:27:03] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:27:04] Speaker 02:
In our briefs, what we stated was that there was tangible harm in the form of pecuniary loss with this

[00:27:11] Speaker 02:
with this violation of the statutory rights as well.

[00:27:13] Speaker 02:
And we said there's also intangible harms that go with that violation.

[00:27:18] Speaker 02:
Also, the intangible harms being the invasion of privacy and risk of future identity theft, emotional injury, things like that.

[00:27:26] Speaker 02:
But we have both tangible and intangible harms

[00:27:28] Speaker 02:
in conjunction with violations of statutory rights.

[00:27:32] Speaker 02:
Even if we're talking about a procedural statutory right, that's still enough under Spokeo because we've alleged these further concrete crimes.

[00:27:41] Speaker 02:
But also your honor, you know,

[00:27:43] Speaker 02:
The question to the driver's license, the answer to the driver's license question that you had is the injury is in the negligence that occurred.

[00:27:53] Speaker 02:
Injury as injury in fact is whether or not the plaintiff's had a legally protected interest.

[00:28:03] Speaker 02:
There's always been a legally protected interest to not be unreasonably harmed by another.

[00:28:10] Speaker 02:
That's the legally protected interest.

[00:28:11] Speaker 02:
That doesn't mean you can state a claim under 12b6.

[00:28:16] Speaker 02:
Similarly, there's always been a legally protected interest to what you contract for.

[00:28:22] Speaker 02:
Doesn't mean you can state a claim under 12b6, but these common law protected interests, breach of contract, negligence, these things have always been there and they've always conferred standing after a plaintiff who alleges them.

[00:28:38] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:28:39] Speaker 02:
Case is submitted.