79 F. Supp. 3d 986
D. Minnesota2015Background
- Plaintiff sued the Cities of Saint Paul and Minneapolis under the DPPA (18 U.S.C. § 2721 et seq.), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion, alleging multiple impermissible accesses of her DMV/driver’s-license records by city personnel.
- Complaint alleges four accesses attributable to St. Paul and nine (or ten in later material) to Minneapolis; plaintiff alleges accesses were for personal reasons, not law-enforcement functions.
- Plaintiff previously received an audit from DPS showing accesses; the Cities provided more detailed spreadsheets later, but the magistrate declined to consider those spreadsheets on the 12(c) motion.
- The Cities moved for judgment on the pleadings (alternatively summary judgment and severance). The magistrate judge recommended granting the Cities’ 12(c) motions in part and denying alternative requests as moot.
- The court analyzed: (1) DPPA claim failure for lack of allegations that accesses were knowingly for an impermissible purpose; (2) § 1983 claims dismissed because no underlying DPPA or constitutional violation was plausibly alleged and Monell liability therefore fails; (3) common-law intrusion claim dismissed for failure to allege a highly offensive intrusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff stated a DPPA claim (knowingly obtained/disclosed/used for impermissible purpose) | Plaintiff: need only allege that the information was not obtained in carrying out a permitted governmental function; viewing/accessing satisfies "obtained" and discovery will show improper purpose | Cities: complaint lacks facts showing any impermissible purpose; mere viewing is insufficient without allegations that the access was for an unauthorized purpose | Held: DPPA claim dismissed—plaintiff failed to allege that accesses were knowingly for an impermissible purpose and allegations were speculative |
| Whether § 1983 relief is available for alleged DPPA violations | Plaintiff: incorporates prior arguments that constitutional and statutory claims exist | Cities: DPPA has comprehensive remedial scheme; § 1983 cannot be used to enforce DPPA (and no underlying statutory violation alleged) | Held: § 1983 claims based on DPPA dismissed; even if DPPA claim existed, remedial scheme would foreclose § 1983 |
| Whether plaintiff has a constitutional privacy (Fourth/Fourteenth) interest in DMV data | Plaintiff: impermissible access of DMV data constitutes constitutional violation | Cities: DMV/driver-license records are government records; plaintiff lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy in that data | Held: Constitutional privacy claims dismissed—no reasonable expectation of privacy in the categories of data alleged (address, photo, DOB, eye color, height, weight, DL number) |
| Whether plaintiff stated common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion | Plaintiff: multiple accesses and timing are offensive; allegations cumulatively plead offensiveness | Cities: accessing DMV records is not highly offensive to a reasonable person; invasion claim depends on statutory/constitutional violations | Held: Intrusion claim dismissed—alleged accesses do not meet the high offensiveness threshold and plaintiff failed to tie accesses to these Cities specifically |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards; labels and conclusions insufficient)
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983 requires an official policy/cause)
- Mallak v. Aitkin County, 9 F. Supp. 3d 1046 (D. Minn. 2014) (discussing what constitutes "obtaining" DMV data under the DPPA)
- Bass v. Anoka County, 998 F. Supp. 2d 813 (D. Minn. 2014) (related DPPA/constitutional and municipal-liability analysis)