Melvin v. Reid

2 Citing briefs

  1. MDL No. 2357 - IN RE: Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation

    REPLY to Response to 62 MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed March 22, 2013

    Indeed, the limited pieces of data at issue (names, addresses, email Case 3:12-cv-00325-RCJ-VPC Document 96 Filed 03/22/13 Page 41 of 47 34 addresses, credit card tail, and cryptographically-scrambled Zappos passwords) are not "intimate private characteristics" or "embarrassing private facts"; nothing about the data is shameful, and no Plaintiff alleges that release of the data has caused him to be shunned or ridiculed. See Melvin v. Reid, 112 Cal. App. 285, 291, 297 P. 91 (1931) (explaining that PDPF is designed to protect a plaintiff from unnecessary public "scorn and contempt"). A claim for PDPF is not appropriate here.

  2. Cohen et al v. Facebook, Inc.

    RESPONSE

    Filed August 23, 2011

    .....................................................8 LaCourt v. Specific Media, 2011 WL 1661532 (C.D. Cal. 2011)..........................................................................................7 Lee v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 2008 WL 698482 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ...........................................................................................9 Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 93 S.Ct. 1146 (1973) ...........................................................................................8 Lozano v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................................24 Lugosi v. Universal Pictures, 25 Cal.3d 813, 160 Cal.Rptr. 323 (1979) .................................................................................10 Mayfield v U.S., 599 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2010) ......................................................................................................6 Melvin v. Reid, 112 Cal.App. 285, 297 P. 91 (1931) ..........................................................................................9 Miller v. Collectors Universe, Inc., 159 Cal.App.4th 988, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 194 (2008) ............................................................ passim Motschenbacher v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 498 F.2d 821 (9th Cir. 1974) .............................................................................................11, 20 Onassis v. Christian-Dior-New York, Inc., 122 Misc.2d 603, 472 N.Y.S.2d 254 (N.Y. Sup. 1984) ...........................................................16 Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (1997) .........................................................................................9 Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., 2011 WL 597867 (C.D. Cal. 2011)............................................................................................9 Smith v. NBC Universal, 524 F.Supp.2d 315 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).................................................................