Greidinger v. Almand
30 F. Supp. 3d 413
D. Maryland2014Background
- Greidinger, a Virginia resident and Maryland-licensed attorney, sues the Maryland Client Protection Fund Trustees over his temporary Maryland license suspension for failing to provide his SSN.
- Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and a permanent injunction against SSN-disclosure suspensions and reinstatement of his Maryland license.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7); a hearing occurred June 25, 2014; motion granted.
- Maryland Rules 16-811.5(a) and 16-811.6(d) require SSN disclosure by Maryland attorneys, with temporary suspensions for noncompliance; the Fund enforces these rules via Court of Appeals procedures; Chief Judge Bell issued letters explaining statutory authority and Privacy Act accommodations; the court applies Twombly/Iqbal standards and discusses whether Privacy Act claims can stand given superseding federal statutes and potential private rights of action.
- The court sua sponte summarizes that § 666 and § 405 supersede the Privacy Act, that the Privacy Act claims lack a private right of action or are otherwise superseded, and that due process claims fail given available avenues for review; overall result is dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §7 of the Privacy Act is superseded by federal statutes | Greidinger argues §7(a) protects SSN disclosures; acts not superseding | Defendants contend §§666 and 405 supersede §7 | Superseded; Privacy Act claim deficient |
| Whether there is a private right of action under §7 of the Privacy Act | Open question in Fourth Circuit; possible §1983 action | Supersession by §§666 and 405 eliminates private remedy | Court need not decide due to supersession; indicates private action uncertain but not viable here |
| Whether due process claim survives and requires a hearing | Argues lack of hearing violated due process | Options for review under Md. Rule 16-811.10; no denial of due process | Due process claim deficient; dismissal of §1983 claim sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plaintiffs must plead plausible claims; no bare recitals)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Schwier v. Cox, 340 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2003) (private privacy act actions may exist where fundamental rights denied)
- Stoianoff v. Comm'r of Motor Vehicles, 107 F. Supp. 2d 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (Privacy Act issues in driver/vehicle licensing context; §7 superseded by §405)
- Dittman v. State of California, 191 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 1999) (no private right of action under §7 in acupuncurist licensing context)
- Discover Bank v. Vaden, 396 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2005) (statutory interpretation aiding §666 and related enforcement)
- Abramski v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2259 (2014) (statutory interpretation of federal policy preemption)