Illuminate Education Data Security Incident Litigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIACIVIL MINUTES - GENERALCase No.SACV 22-1164 JVS (ADSx)DateApril 19, 2023TitleIn re: Illuminate Education Data Security Incident LitigationPresent: TheHonorableJames V. Selna, U.S. District Court JudgeElsa VargasNot PresentDeputy ClerkCourt Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:Attorneys Present for Defendants:Not PresentNot PresentProceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] Order Regarding Motion to Dismiss [61]Defendant, Illuminate Education, Inc. d/b/a Pupil Path (“Illuminate”), moves todismiss the consolidated complaint. (Mot., Dkt. No. 61.) Plaintiffs1 opposed. (Opp’n,Dkt. No. 75.) Illuminate replied. (Reply, Dkt. No. 77.) The Court vacated the hearing. Fed R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part asmoot the motion. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs twenty-one (21) days’ leave to amend. I.BACKGROUNDIlluminate is a software company that services 17 million students in 5,200 schoolsand districts across all 50 states. (Compl. ¶¶ 1–2.) Illuminate offers several products thatrequires the collection of students’ personal information, including names, birth dates,class schedules, behavioral records, and health and socioeconomic information. (Id. ¶¶3–5.) On January 8, 2022, Illuminate became aware that an unauthorized third partygained access to Illuminate’s databases containing personally identifiable information(“PII”) and protected health information (“PHI”) of students. (Id. ¶ 6.) Illuminateconducted an investigation and confirmed unauthorized access took place betweenDecember 28, 2021, and January 8, 2022 (the “Data Breach”). (Id. ¶ 27.) The DataBreach was a result of an unauthorized access to one of Illuminate’s platforms used in K-1 Plaintiffs are Lucas Cranor (“Cranor”), Kristen Weiland (“Weiland”), Anastasiya Kisil(“Kisil”), Tara Chambers (“Chambers”), Janene Vitro (“Vitro”), Sarah Chung (“Chung”), and LorraineDeniz (“Deniz”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs bring this action individually and behalf of allothers similarly situated. (See Consolidated Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. No 57.) Although Chung’scase was consolidated on this docket, she is absent from the parties’ present briefing. (Dkt. No. 54.) CV-90 (06/04)CIVIL MINUTES - GENERALPage 1 of 10Case 8:22-cv-01164-JVS-ADS Document 79 Filed 04/19/23 Page 1 of 10 Page ID #:845
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIACIVIL MINUTES - GENERALCase No.SACV 22-1164 JVS (ADSx)DateApril 19, 2023TitleIn re: Illuminate Education Data Security Incident Litigation12 school districts. (Id. ¶ 28.) Information leaked included student academic, behavior,and demographic information. (Id. ¶ 32 (listing the information leaked).) The DataBreach affected over three million students, primarily students enrolled during2021–2022, and possibly as early as 2016. (Id. ¶¶ 30–31.) Illuminate did not notifyschools until late March 2022. (Id. ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs bring this action individually and onbehalf of other class members. (Id. ¶ 15.)II.LEGAL STANDARDA.Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)Dismissal is proper when a plaintiff fails to properly plead subject matterjurisdiction in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). A “jurisdictional attack may befacial or factual.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). If the challenge is based solely upon the allegations in the complaint (a “facial attack”),the court generally presumes the allegations in the complaint are true. Id.; Warren v. FoxFamily Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003). If instead the challengedisputes the truth of the allegations that would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction, thechallenger has raised a “factual attack,” and the court may review evidence beyond theconfines of the complaint without assuming the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations. SafeAir, 373 F.3d at 1039. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matterjurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).Pursuant to Article III of the Constitution, the Court’s jurisdiction over the case“depends on the existence of a ‘case or controversy.’” GTE Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 39 F.3d940, 945 (9th Cir. 1994). A “case or controversy” exists only if a plaintiff has standing tobring the claim. Nelson v. NASA, 530 F.3d 865, 873 (9th Cir. 2008), rev’d on othergrounds, 562 U.S. 134 (2011). To have standing, “a plaintiff must show (1) it hassuffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual orimminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to thechallenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative,that their injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v.Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–81 (2000); see alsoLujan v. Defenders ofWildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992); Nelson, 530 F.3d at 873. “[P]laintiffs mustdemonstrate standing for each claim that they press and for each form of relief that theyseek (for example, injunctive relief and damages).” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.CV-90 (06/04)CIVIL MINUTES - GENERALPage 2 of 10Case 8:22-cv-01164-JVS-ADS Document 79 Filed 04/19/23 Page 2 of 10 Page ID #:846
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
0.1204.0
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.