Seale v. Peacock
32 F.4th 1011
| 10th Cir. | 2022Background
- Bryan Seale received at least 15 anonymous letters in Nov–Dec 2017 containing explicit photos, dating-profile material, and derogatory statements; Seale alleges reputational and business harm.
- In Dec 2018 Seale discovered 20 unauthorized logins to his CTM real-estate account; some IP addresses corresponded to locations/times when Gary Peacock (ex-husband/ex-employee) was present; Seale alleged Peacock was the only person with the login information.
- Seale sued Peacock and unnamed John/Jane Does in Colorado state court asserting (inter alia) SCA violation, Colorado civil theft, appropriation (name/likeness), invasion-of-privacy claims, and libel per se; Peacock removed the case to federal court.
- The magistrate judge dismissed the claims against Peacock under Rule 12(b)(6) (dismissing all three Peacock claims with prejudice) and denied Seale leave to amend to substitute Peacock for the unnamed defendants, dismissing the Doe claims without prejudice under Rule 4(m).
- On appeal the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: held Seale had Article III standing for the SCA claim but that statutory damages under the SCA require proof of actual damages; affirmed dismissal of civil theft with prejudice; remanded SCA and appropriation claims to be dismissed without prejudice; affirmed denial of the motion to amend substituting Peacock for unnamed defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing for SCA claim | Seale: unauthorized access to electronic communications is a concrete privacy injury even absent monetary loss. | Peacock: no actual damages, so no injury in fact. | Court: Seale has standing — intangible privacy harms (disclosure/intrusion) can be concrete. |
| Whether §2707(c) permits $1,000 statutory damages without actual damages | Seale: statutory minimum is available regardless of actual damages. | Peacock: statutory minimum requires proof of actual damages (Doe reasoning). | Court: Plaintiffs must show actual damages before eligibility for statutory damages under the SCA. |
| Sufficiency of alleged damages supporting SCA claim | Seale: alleged business losses and mental anguish. | Peacock: alleged business losses stemmed from 2017 letters, not 2018 CTM access; no actual damages from access alleged. | Court: Dismissed SCA claim — Seale failed to allege actual damages caused by the CTM access. |
| Appropriateness of dismissal with prejudice; futility to amend | Seale: dismissal with prejudice was improper; could amend to cure deficiencies. | Peacock: civil theft lacks intent to permanently deprive; other claims lack damages. | Court: Civil theft dismissal with prejudice affirmed (futile). SCA and appropriation claims are not necessarily futile — reversed and remanded to be dismissed without prejudice so Seale may amend. |
| Denial of leave to amend to substitute Peacock for Doe defendants (Rule 16/15) | Seale: magistrate’s service-extension order implicitly extended pleading-amendment deadline; he had new evidence. | Magistrate/Peacock: Seale failed to show good cause/diligence under Rule 16(b); amendment untimely. | Court: Affirmed — magistrate did not abuse discretion; Seale failed to show good cause to modify the scheduling order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; courts disregard threadbare legal conclusions)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing doctrine: injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) (recognizing reputational/private-information harms as concrete injuries)
- Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004) (held Privacy Act plaintiffs must prove actual damages to qualify for statutory minimum; court relied on reasoning for SCA interpretation)
- Van Alstyne v. Electronic Scriptorium, Ltd., 560 F.3d 199 (4th Cir.) (applied Doe analysis to SCA; held actual damages required for statutory SCA damages)
- Vista Marketing, LLC v. Burkett, 812 F.3d 954 (11th Cir.) (same conclusion as Van Alstyne)
- Van Rees v. Unleaded Software, Inc., 373 P.3d 603 (Colo. 2016) (Colorado civil-theft requires specific intent to permanently deprive owner)