P. 1
Krottner v. Starbucks

Krottner v. Starbucks

Ratings: (0)|Views: 699 |Likes:
Ninth Circuit brief appealing dismissal (W.D. Wash.) of data breach claims against Starbucks based on the loss or theft of a laptop containing personal information of Starbucks employees.
Ninth Circuit brief appealing dismissal (W.D. Wash.) of data breach claims against Starbucks based on the loss or theft of a laptop containing personal information of Starbucks employees.

More info:

Published by: Venkat Balasubramani on Nov 12, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/21/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
No. 09-35823(and Consolidated Case No. 09-35824)IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT__________________________________________________LAURA KROTTNER, ISHAYA SHAMASA, and JOSEPH LALLI,Plaintiffs - Appellants,v.STARBUCKS CORPORATION,Defendant - Appellee.__________________________________________________Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Western District of Washington__________________________________________________PLAINTIFFS – APPELLANTS’ OPENING BRIEF__________________________________________________Lynn Lincoln Sarko Mila F. BartosMark A. Griffin Karen J. MarcusGretchen Freeman Cappio Eugene J. Benick 
K
ELLER
R
OHRBACK
L.L.P. F
INKELSTEIN
T
HOMPSON
LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 1050 30
th
Street, NWSeattle, WA 98101-3052 Washington, DC 20007Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Telephone: (202) 337-8000Ben Barnow
B
ARNOW AND
A
SSOCIATES
,
 
P.C.
One North LaSalle, Suite 4600Chicago, IL 60602Telephone: (312) 621-2000
 Attorneys for Plaintiffs - Appellants
 
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
I. JURISDICTION.................................................................................................1II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES......................................................................1III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE..........................................................................2IV. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS.......................................................................5V. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT......................................................................12VI. STANDARD OF REVIEW............................................................................13VII. ARGUMENT.................................................................................................15A. Starbucks Breached Its Contractual Duty to Plaintiffs, Resulting inInjury and Compensable Damages.............................................................151. Plaintiffs have adequately pled the existence of an implied contractunder Washington law............................................................................182. Plaintiffs have plausibly pled the elements of a breach of a contract....223. Starbucks’ breach of implied contract damaged Plaintiffs.....................234. Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Ripe for Adjudication.........................................27B. Starbucks Was Negligent In Allowing Plaintiffs’ PII To BeCompromised And Should Be Held Legally Accountable.........................281. Plaintiffs Have Pled Plausible Prima Facie Elements of NegligenceEntitling Plaintiffs To Survive A Motion To Dismiss............................29
 
ii2. Injury, Harm and Damages are Discrete Legal Concepts, TheUnderstanding Of Which Are Critical To The Proper AdjudicationOf The Plaintiffs’ Negligence Claim......................................................32a. The Concepts of “Injury,” “Harm,” and “Damage” Are DistinctLegal Concepts Which Should Not Be Blurred..................................32b. Plaintiffs Have Alleged an Injury.......................................................34(i) Injury For Standing Encompasses Injury For Negligence Claim...35(ii) Plaintiffs Are Seeking Remedy Of A Modern Problem Under WellEstablished Causes Of Action.........................................................37(iii) Washington Would Not Be The First Jurisdiction To FindIncreased Risk of Identity Theft As Cognizable Claim Under StateLaw..................................................................................................38c. Harm Exists for Plaintiffs’ Negligence Claim As Plaintiffs HaveExperienced the Loss of Their PII Because of Starbucks' DataMishandling.........................................................................................39(i) “Proof” Is Not Required At This Stage of The Litigation..............423. Plaintiffs Have Alleged Sufficient Damages Under Washington Law..434. The Economic Loss Rule Does Not Apply.............................................45C. Credit Monitoring Is an Available Remedy Under Washington Law........501. Washington Courts Traditionally Protect Plaintiffs in Areas of Developing Case Law ……………………………………………….…512. Plaintiffs’ Duty to Mitigate Implicates the Remedy of CreditMonitoring..............................................................................................54D. In the Alternative, This Court Should Certify Issues to the WashingtonSupreme Court............................................................................................56

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->