Krottner v. Starbucks Corp.
628 F.3d 1139
9th Cir.2010Background
- Plaintiffs-Appellants seek relief for alleged data privacy harms; district court dismissed state-law claims for failure to plead cognizable injury and implied contract.
- Court holds standing under Article III for injury-in-fact but separately concludes damages and state-law claims are inadequately pled.
- Plaintiffs allege future harm from data breach; Shamasa claims misuse of info; Lalli claims anxiety but court notes waiver of argument.
- Under Washington law, actual loss or damage is required for negligence; mere risk of future harm is insufficient.
- Court declines to certify a question to the Washington Supreme Court and affirms dismissal of negligence and contract claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of negligence injury | Lalli/Shamasa allege future harm from data breach. | No present damages, thus no cognizable injury under Washington law. | Negligence claim dismissed for lack of cognizable injury. |
| Existence of implied contract | Documents allegedly forming implied contract were read and accepted by plaintiffs. | Plaintiffs did not allege reading, acceptance, or mutual assent to terms; no offer-acceptance. | Implied-contract claim dismissed. |
| Need for certification of state-law questions | State-law issues may require certification. | No uncertain state-law questions; certification unnecessary. | No certification required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (U.S. 2004) (injury-in-fact vs. pleading a proper claim; standing distinct from claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for stating a claim)
- Gazija v. Nicholas Jerns Co., 543 P.2d 338 (Wash. 1975) (actual loss or damage essential in negligence; future risk alone insufficient)
- Milone & Tucci, Inc. v. Bona Fide Builders, Inc., 301 P.2d 759 (Wash. 1956) (requirements for implied contract in fact (offer, acceptance, communication, mutual assent))
- City of Houston, Tex. v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1987) (certification inappropriate where state-law questions are not uncertain)
- Hall v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 476 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2007) (court may affirm on any basis supported by the record)