Data Breach Class Action Against Lamoille Health

Request a Demo
Log In
Court Dockets
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT PATRICIA MARSHALL, on behalf ) of herself and all others ) similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:22-cv-166 ) LAMOILLE HEALTH PARTNERS, ) INC., ) ) Defendant. ) OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Patricia Marshall claims that a 2022 cyberattack on Defendant Lamoille Health Partners, Inc. (“Lamoille”) resulted in the compromise of her personal information, and that Lamoille is liable for the resulting harm. Marshall brings this case as a putative class action, alleging that the data breach also impacted approximately 60,000 other individuals. Pending before the Court is Lamoille’s motion to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Lamoille contends that as a “deemed” employee of the United States Public Health Service it enjoys absolute immunity from Marshall’s tort claims, and that the exclusive remedy is a claim against the United States. For the reasons set forth below, Lamoille’s motion to dismiss is denied. Case 2:22-cv-00166-wks Document 22 Filed 04/13/23 Page 1 of 13
2 Factual Background Lamoille is an integrated health care provider located in Morrisville, Vermont. The Complaint alleges that in 2022, a targeted cyberattack allowed third-party access to Lamoille’s computer system, resulting in the compromise of highly-sensitive patient information. That information reportedly included names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and private medical information. Marshall claims in her Complaint that Lamoille maintained that information in a reckless manner, knew of the risk of a data breach, and failed to take necessary security measures. Marshall is a past or present patient of Lamoille. As a result of the data breach, she and approximately 60,000 others allegedly suffered damages. Those damages included out-of-pocket costs incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the breach, emotional distress, and possible future harm in the form of fraud and/or identity theft. The Complaint asserts causes of action for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. Marshall avers that this Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Now before the Court is Lamoille’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Lamoille contends that as a federal grant recipient under the Public Health Service Act, Case 2:22-cv-00166-wks Document 22 Filed 04/13/23 Page 2 of 13
opens in a new tab
opens in a new tab
opens in a new tab
opens in a new tab
Bloomberg Industry Group
About Usopens in a new tab
Contact Usopens in a new tab
Other Products
Big Law Businessopens in a new tab
Professional Learningopens in a new tab
BNAopens in a new tab
Help Topics
Getting Startedopens in a new tab
BCite Citatoropens in a new tab
Smart Codeopens in a new tab
Points of Lawopens in a new tab
Browse All Help Topicsopens in a new tab
24/7 BLAW® Help Desk
888.560.2529
[email protected]
0.1627.3
1.1169.0
0.1203.0
Terms of Serviceopens in a new tab
Privacy Policyopens in a new tab
Copyrightopens in a new tab
Accessibilityopens in a new tab
© 2023 Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.