Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc.
14 F. Supp. 3d 667
W.D. Pa.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Brian and Crystal Byrd (putative class representatives) allege Aaron’s franchisees installed DesignerWare’s PC Rental Agent on rent-to-own laptops to surreptitiously capture screenshots, keystrokes and webcam images and transmit them via DesignerWare’s Pennsylvania servers.
- Byrds allege repeated access to their laptop (≈347 times between Nov–Dec 2010); Aspen Way (an Aaron’s franchisee) is the store from which Crystal Byrd leased the laptop.
- Operative pleading: Corrected Third Amended Complaint raising 4 counts — (I) ECPA violations (18 U.S.C. § 2511), (II) invasion of privacy (intrusion on seclusion under Wyoming law), (III) conspiracy (ECPA + privacy), and (IV) aiding and abetting.
- Multiple franchisee defendants (≈50) moved to dismiss for lack of standing; Aaron’s moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss parts of the federal and state claims; Aspen Way moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Magistrate Judge Baxter recommended: dismiss most franchisees for lack of standing; deny Aspen Way’s jurisdiction motion; grant-in-part and deny-in-part Aaron’s motion. District Court adopted the R&R with two principal modifications explained below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of non-dealing franchisees | Byrds say a conspiracy (and class posture) ties all franchisees to the alleged injury and thus they have standing against all named franchisees | Franchisees argue no dealings with Byrds and no allegation they directly harmed Byrds, so Byrds lack Article III standing against them | Court: No standing for franchisees who had no direct dealings; motions to dismiss those franchisees for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction granted |
| Aaron’s direct ECPA liability (interception/use) | Byrds allege Aaron’s reconfigured corporate servers, opened intranet portal, received and routed captured data and knew of franchisees’ spying — sufficient to plead direct liability | Aaron’s contends complaint lacks allegations that Aaron’s intercepted or used communications and that collected material was intercepted "in transmission" as ECPA requires | Court: Aaron’s motion granted in part and denied in part — conspiracy-based secondary liability under ECPA dismissed (no secondary liability), but Count I (direct ECPA claim) survives at pleading stage; sufficiency of "interception" left for discovery/summary judgment |
| Personal jurisdiction over Aspen Way | Byrds invoke absent co-conspirator doctrine and specific jurisdiction — DesignerWare’s Pennsylvania server performed substantial conspiratorial acts; Aspen Way repeatedly used DesignerWare’s Pennsylvania servers and accepted EULA referencing Pennsylvania | Aspen Way argues lack of purposeful availment and heavy burden of litigating in Pennsylvania | Court: Denied Aspen Way’s 12(b)(2) motion — personal jurisdiction exists (specific jurisdiction and/or imputation via absent co-conspirator doctrine); prior vacuumed order was vacated so jurisdiction stands |
| State-law invasion / aiding & abetting claims under Wyoming law | Byrds assert intrusion-on-seclusion and derivative conspiracy/aiding claims; ask certification to Wyoming Supreme Court if needed | Aaron’s argues Wyoming does not recognize intrusion-on-seclusion or aiding-and-abetting torts as pleaded | Court: Dismissed Count II (invasion of privacy) and derivative aiding-and-abetting and portion of conspiracy claims based on state law; also dismissed aiding-and-abetting where Wyoming law does not support it |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard: plausible claim; Twombly/Iqbal framework)
- Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (pleading standard interpretation applying Twombly in Third Circuit)
- Kirch v. Embarq Mgmt. Co., 702 F.3d 1245 (holding regarding secondary liability under ECPA)
- Shefts v. Petrakis, 954 F. Supp. 2d 769 (E.D. Ill. district court decision on limits of secondary liability under ECPA)
- Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 384 F.3d 93 (co-conspirator/jurisdiction discussion)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (limits on general personal jurisdiction; background on specific jurisdiction inquiry)