Johanna McDonough v. Anoka County
799 F.3d 931
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Consolidated DPPA actions against numerous Minnesota municipalities, DPS, and law-enforcement personnel alleging improper access/disclosure of personal motor-vehicle record data.
- Plaintiffs Bass, McDonough, Mitchell, and Potocnik claim DPS databases were accessed by Law Enforcement Does without permissible purposes.
- Audits show hundreds of lookups; pattern suggests late-night, cross-agency, multi-entity accesses; some plaintiffs have no crime history while others had unrelated investigations.
- District courts dismissed for failure to state a claim and for accrual timing under the statute of limitations; question is accrual trigger and pleadings sufficiency.
- Court analyzes accrual under 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a) with Gabelli v. SEC guidance, and evaluates whether § 2724’s terms (obtainment, use, and purpose) are satisfied against various defendants.
- Court remands in part, affirming some dismissals and reversing others to permit further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When DPPA actions accrue and what triggers the statute of limitations | Discovery rule should apply; accrual upon discovery | Accrual occurs at time of impermissible access | Accrual begins at the time of the prohibited access; discovery rule does not govern unless Congress intended. |
| Whether DPPA's 'obtain' includes mere viewing or requires possession | Viewing constitutes obtainment | Obtainment requires more than mere viewing | Viewing/observing qualifies as obtainment under § 2724. |
| Plausibility of impermissible-purpose claims against Local Entities and Does | Patterned, late-night, multi-agency accesses show impermissible purpose | Allegations are speculative without direct ties to specific Defendants | Some timely claims against particular Defendants are plausible; others are dismissed. |
| Liability and qualified immunity for Commissioners and DPS Does | Commissioners/DPS Does knowingly allowed impermissible disclosures | No clearly established mental-state liability; qualified immunity applies | Dismissals against Commissioners and DPS Does affirmed on qualified-immunity grounds. |
| What remains for remand given mixed district-court rulings on pleadings | Plausible impermissible-purpose allegations against many entities | Many claims fail under Twombly/Iqbal and evidentiary gaps | Cases remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gabelli v. SEC, 133 S. Ct. 1216 (2013) (guidance on accrual and limitations in government enforcement actions)
- TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001) (limitations text may preclude a general discovery rule in some regimes)
- Comcast of Ill. x v. Multi-Vision Elecs., Inc., 491 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2007) (discovery rule as default accrual rule in absence of congressional direction)
- Maverick Transportation, LLC v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 739 F.3d 1149 (8th Cir. 2014) (prior panel on discovery rule; considerations limited by Gabelli's approach)
- City of Timber Lake v. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, 10 F.3d 554 (8th Cir. 1993) (consideration of Supreme Court dicta and precedent in context)