50 F. Supp. 3d 204
E.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Plaintiff Sewell sues Bernardin alleging CFAA, SCA, and trespass to chattels for unauthorized access to AOL and Facebook accounts.
- Relationship between Sewell and Bernardin lasted 2002–2011; Sewell was sole authorized user with private passwords.
- Plaintiff alleges Bernardin obtained passwords at his home and later accessed accounts, altering passwords on Aug. 1, 2011 (AOL) and Feb. 24, 2012 (Facebook).
- Verizon records purportedly show access from an IP tied to Bernardin’s wife’s residence; plaintiff theorizes use of wife’s computer to log in.
- Plaintiff alleges further wrongdoing, including posting private information and defamatory messages from the accounts to Sewell’s contacts.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); court grants dismissal based on statute of limitations and declines supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the CFAA claim time-barred? | Sewell argues timely by discovery of damage within two years. | Bernardin contends discovery occurred well before filing. | CFAA claim untimely; time-barred. |
| Is the SCA claim time-barred against AOL? | Sewell asserts timely discovery of stored communications violation. | Bernardin argues long-ago discovery dates preclude timely suit. | SCA claim untimely as to AOL violation. |
| Is the SCA claim time-barred against Facebook? | Sewell asserts discovery within two years of Facebook access. | Bernardin contends discovery began with AOL breach; broader knowledge not needed. | SCA claim untimely as to Facebook violation. |
| Should the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the NY trespass to chattels claim? | State claim warrants adjudication in federal court alongside federal claims. | With federal claims dismissed, no basis for supplemental jurisdiction. | Court declines supplemental jurisdiction; trespass to chattels dismissed without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading plausibility standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (facially plausible claims required)
- Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009) (caution against relying on conclusory statements)
- Nexans Wires S.A. v. Sark-USA, Inc., 319 F.Supp.2d 468 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (damages under CFAA limited to economic damages)
- Pure Power Boot Camp v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, 587 F.Supp.2d 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (SCA privacy aims; civil actions for unauthorized access)