Canada v. Dominion Enterprises, 4:13-cv-00345

Cross-Sell, a Dominion subsidiary, obtained Arkansas motor vehicle records including lienholder data.
Canada, not a lienholder, sues under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) for unlawful bulk distribution.
Defendants represented purposes for use of records as motor vehicle safety, research, and statistical reports, not marketing.
Canada’s claim lacks evidence that personal information was obtained, disclosed, or used for bulk marketing or solicitations.
Court considers Rule 56(f)(3) summary judgment sua sponte after notice; grants summary judgment for defendants and dismisses remaining claims and motions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
DPPA claim survives summary judgment?	Canada asserts impermissible bulk use of data.	Defendants had permissible DPPA uses; no evidence of bulk use.	DPPA claim fails; no evidence of impermissible purpose.
Sanctions under Rule 11 warranted?	Canada’s pleadings had evidentiary basis.	Attorneys lacked evidentiary support.	Sanctions denied.
Impact of proposed amended complaint and class certification?	Amendment and class certification warranted.	Amendment and class not warranted.	Amendment denied as futile; class certification moot.
Court’s jurisdiction over state-law claim?	State-law claim should proceed.	Discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction.	Court declines supplemental jurisdiction.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (establishes standard for genuine disputes of material fact)
Madewell v. Downs, 68 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 1995) (summary judgment criteria and notice requirements)
Clark v. United Parcel Serv., 460 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2006) (fact-intensive Rule 11 determinations; deference to case-specific inquiry)
Cook v. ACS State & Local Solutions, Inc., 663 F.3d 989 (8th Cir. 2011) (relevant to DPPA purpose and data use)
Howard v. Criminal Info. Servs., Inc., 654 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 2011) (defining DPPA purpose as the object sought to be attained)