Claims on Appeal: Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 (GERA) termination. Disposition Below: Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, FRCP12(b)(1) [plaintiff]. Outcome on Appeal: Dismissed [plaintiff].

Claims on Appeal: Title VII retaliation. Disposition Below: Judgment on the pleadings, FRCP12(c) [defendant]. Outcome on Appeal: Reversed [plaintiff].

2. ADEA termination. § 1983 political discrimination and commonwealth law claims (not discussed here) Disposition Below: 1. Dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, FRCP12(b)(1) [defendant]. 2. Dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, FRCP12(b)(1) [defendant].

Claims On Appeal: 1.Title VII and PA state law failure to rehire (sex). 2. Title VII and PA state law retaliation (sex). Disposition Below: 1. Dismissed for failure to state a claim, FRCP12(b)(6) [defendant]. 2. Dismissed for failure to state a claim, FRCP12(b)(6) [defendant].

Claims on Appeal: Title VII, N.Y. state and N.Y.C. discrimination (sex). Disposition Below: Dismissal on subject-matter jurisdiction grounds under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) [defendant]. Outcome on Appeal: Affirmed [defendant].

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.Matthew Carlsen, individually and purportedly on behalf of others similarly situated, brought claims against GameStop, Inc. and Sunrise Publications, Inc. (collectively, “GameStop”) for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and violation of Minnesota’s Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), Minn. Stat. §§ 325F.68, et seq., for GameStop’s alleged disclosure of personal information to athird party in violation of an express agreement not to do so. GameStop filed a motion to dismiss Carlsen’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter 1 jurisdiction, finding that Carlsen lacked standing.

State and federal statutory and constitutional claims (not discussed here). Disposition Below: Dismissed for failure to state a claim, FRCP12(b)(6) [defendant]. Outcome on Appeal: Reversed [plaintiff].

Panel: KRAUSE, Ambro, Barry. Claim on Appeal: Title VII retaliation. Disposition Below: Dismissed for failure to state a claim, FRCP12(b)(6) [defendant]. Outcome on Appeal: Reversed [plaintiff].

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDERPlaintiffs Ray Clutts, Heather Dieffenbach, Jonathan Honor, and Susan Winstead filed this putative class action against Defendant Barnes & Noble, Inc. in the wake of a data breach during which hackers obtained personal identifying information (“PII”) belonging to Barnes & Noble customers. Plaintiffs purchased products with their credit or debit cards at affected stores during the time period in which this data breach occurred. This Court previously dismissed Plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“Original Complaint”) for lack of Article III standing. Plaintiffs subsequently filed their First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”), which Barnes & Noble has moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 59.) For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have established standing but nonetheless have failed to state a claim and thus dismisses all counts of the Amended Complaint.BACKGROUNDIn September 2012, unsolicited individuals, known as “skimmers,” tampered with PIN pad terminals in 63 Barnes & Noble stores located in nine states. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 50, Dkt. No. 58.) Barnes & Noble uses these PIN pad terminals to process its customers’ credit and debit card payments in its retail stores. (Id. ¶ 20.) Six weeks after discovering this potential security breach, Barnes & Noble announced to the public that these skimmers had potentially stolen customer credit and debit information from the affected locations. (Id. ¶ 50.) Plaintiffs were customers ofBarnes & Noble at retail stores affected by the data breach during the time period when this data breach occurred.1 (Id. ¶¶ 12–15.)Plaintiffs filed the Original Complaint on March 25, 2013.(D

A Rule 12(b) motion seeks dismissal of specific “claim[s] for relief” in the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Because the claims of nonresident putative class members are not before the court, a precertification Rule 12 motion is premature.