Worix v. MedAssets, Inc.
857 F. Supp. 2d 699
N.D. Ill.2012Background
- Worix sues MedAssets for alleged SCA, ICFA, and state-law claims involving a June 2011 hard-drive theft.
- Hard drive contained names, dates of birth, and SSNs for tens of thousands of patients; data was unencrypted and unprotected.
- August 19, 2011 letter on CCHHS/MedAssets letterhead stated what data was on the drive and that it was unencrypted.
- MedAssets removed the case to federal court leveraging CAFA and federal-question jurisdiction.
- MedAssets moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); court grants the motion, dismissing several counts without prejudice.
- Case proceeds with potential amendment opportunity if Worix can allege a cognizable injury under Illinois law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| SCA claim viability for knowingly divulging data | Worix asserts MedAssets knowingly divulged data | MedAssets contends there was no knowing disclosure | SCA claim dismissed for lack of knowing disclosure |
| Negligence claim sufficiency under Illinois law | Worix alleges increased risk and monitoring costs as injury | No present injury shown; increases in risk not injury | Negligence claim dismissed for lack of present injury; amendment possible |
| ICFA claim viability for actual damages | Worix alleges actual damages from data breach | ICFA requires actual damages; allegations insufficient | ICFA claim dismissed for lack of actual damages; amendment possible |
| Right to amend after dismissal | Worix should be allowed to amend to state a cognizable injury | N/A | Dismissal without prejudice; Worix may amend to plead a present injury |
| Ruling on scope of potential amendments under Illinois law | N/A | N/A | Court invites amended pleading if present injury can be alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Virnich v. Vorwald, 664 F.3d 206 (7th Cir. 2011) (pleading standards; plausibility standard under Twombly/Iqbal)
- Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060 (U.S. 2011) (willful blindness doctrine; knowledge under criminal-law context)
- Pisciotta v. Old Nat. Bancorp, 499 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2007) (predicting state-law outcomes in federal court; damages/injury standards)
- Williams v. Manchester, 228 Ill.2d 404 (Ill. 2008) (increased risk of future harm as damages element, not injury itself)
- Krottner v. Starbucks Corp., 406 F. App'x 129 (9th Cir. 2010) (injury-in-fact for standing vs. state-law damages; distinct inquiries)
- Anderson v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 659 F.3d 151 (1st Cir. 2011) (distinguishes actual misuse from mere data exposure; nuance for negligence)
- Cooney v. Chicago Public Schools, 407 Ill.App.3d 358 (2010) (ICFA actual damages requirement; credit monitoring not per se injury)