Kentucky Federal Court Brushes Aside Pre-emptive Attack on Class Allegations in Phishing Case, Rejects Out-of-the-Box Defense Strategy

by BakerHostetler
Contact

Brushing aside apparent flaws in a proposed class definition, a federal court in Kentucky declined to dismiss class allegations against North Carolina-based pharmacy services provider Pharm-Save Inc. (Pharm-Save) stemming from a W-2 phishing scam.

In its Dec. 1, 2017, decision denying in part Pharm-Save’s motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge Thomas B. Russell declined to consider Pharm-Save’s comprehensive challenge to the plaintiffs’ proposed class definition – and the legal sufficiency of the class allegations in general – and reserved determination of those issues until the plaintiffs move to certify the class. Savidge, et al. v. Pharm-Save, Inc., 3:17-CV-00186-TBR (W.D. Ky. Dec. 1, 2017) [ECF 26].

The lawsuit, originally filed in Kentucky state court in March 2016, arose from a phishing scam in which hackers tricked a company employee into unwittingly sending W-2 forms to a fake email address the hackers had hijacked to pose as a Pharm-Save executive. These types of scams have become increasingly widespread, with more than 175 reports of W-2 phishing attacks in 2016 alone. As the complaint notes, the IRS issued an alert before the Pharm-Save attack warning payroll and HR professionals about the emerging scheme

Plaintiffs Andrea Savidge and Beth Lynch filed suit on behalf of a putative class consisting of “all persons . . . who were the victims of a data security breach that occurred on or about March 3, 2016, wherein their sensitive and personal data was compromised.” Pharm-Save promptly moved to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and – taking a strategic tact not often employed by class defendants – asked the court to also dismiss the class allegations.

Courts often decide whether or not to certify a class after the plaintiffs move for certification under Rule 23, and usually after some discovery has taken place. The plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that the elements of Rule 23(a) and (b) have been met.

Nothing in Rule 23, however, prevents a defendant from pre-emptively seeking dismissal of class claims before the plaintiffs move for certification. In fact, Rule 23(c)(1)(A) explicitly directs courts to consider class certification “at an early practicable time after a person sues or is sued as a class representative[.]” This means that a defendant who perceives deficiencies in class allegations can request dismissal of those allegations based on the pleadings alone, without waiting for discovery or plaintiffs’ motion to certify. An increasingly common tactic among defense counsel is to move to strike class allegations under Rule 23(d)(1)(D). On a motion to strike, the standard is whether the complaint itself demonstrates that class certification is improper. Pharm-Save took a different route, however, basing its challenge to the class claims on its Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, where the complaint’s “well pleaded” allegations are accepted as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in the plaintiffs’ favor.

Arguably, by affirmatively moving to dismiss the class claims rather than waiting to oppose the plaintiffs’ motion for certification, Pharm-Save shifted the burden onto itself to show that Rule 23’s requirements cannot be met as a matter of law. Indeed, at least one Kentucky federal court has adopted this view. Schilling v. Kenton Cty., Ky., No. CIV.A. 10-143-DLB, 2011 WL 293759, at *4 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 27, 2011) (“The moving party has the burden of demonstrating from the face of the plaintiffs’ complaint that it will be impossible to certify the class as alleged, regardless of the facts plaintiffs may be able to prove.”). But most authorities adhere to the sounder view that the named plaintiff has the burden of showing the propriety of certification regardless of the vehicle through which the defendant chooses to challenge the class allegations.

In Pharm-Save’s case, the court held that it was “premature” to decide the certification issue, and reserved its determination until the plaintiffs move for certification and Pharm-Save opposes it. The court did so notwithstanding Pharm-Save’s comprehensive attack on the facial sufficiency of the class allegations, which centered largely on the widely discussed issue of standing. Specifically, Pharm-Save argued that the class definition, as proposed, would include large numbers of individuals who suffered no real harm from the data breach and therefore lacked standing to participate in the lawsuit. The class must be redefined, the company argued, to include only individuals who actually suffered monetary damage from the phishing scam. But even this redefined class was unascertainable because it would be impossible to identify every individual who suffered monetary damage from the breach without making extensive factual findings, negating the purpose of a class action altogether. For example, Pharm-Save pointed out that Ms. Savidge was the only plaintiff on whose behalf the hackers allegedly filed a fraudulent tax return – a unique experience that renders her claim of damages atypical of the class and exemplifies the type individualized inquiry that would overwhelm the case.

While Pharm-Save’s motion did not pan out, the company may have notched some strategic points that could strengthen its position later. For one thing, its argument likely helped educate the court as to what Pharm-Save sees as fatal flaws in the proposed class, and this view will persist through discovery and an eventual motion for certification by the plaintiffs. Further, the court’s rejection of Pharm-Save’s challenge to class certification does not curtail its right to reassert those attacks when the plaintiff moves for certification. And since Pharm-Save was filing a motion to dismiss the other claims, there was no downside in arguing to redefine or even strike the class allegations. In short, win or lose, a pre-emptive challenge to class allegations merits serious consideration from defense counsel.

For more discussion regarding constitutional standing issues in data breach cases, similar to those raised by Pharm-Save, please go here and here.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© BakerHostetler | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

BakerHostetler
Contact
more
less

BakerHostetler on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.