Data Breach Requires Plaintiff’s Own Information was Missued
Post number 5394
The Dismissal Based on Lips’s Failure to Plead Injury in Fact,
Posted on July 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gDQZc5vP and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
In Danielle Lips, on behaf of hersef and all others similarly situated v. ACCU Reference Medical Lab, LLC, Civil Action No. 25-13642 (SDW) (CF), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (June 24, 2026) a data-breach class action, the District of New Jersey granted Accu Reference Medical Lab, LLC’s motion to dismiss because Plaintiff Danielle Lips failed to plead Article III standing.
FACTS:
Lips alleged that ACCU, a medical testing laboratory, obtained her personally identifiable information and protected health information through diagnostic testing ordered by her former physician. She claimed the Qilin ransomware group stole ACCU’s data and posted screenshots containing some patients’ unredacted information on the dark web. Lips alleged increased risk of identity theft, future mitigation expenses, lost time, annoyance, and diminution in the value of her information.
LAW:
A plaintiff must establish Article III standing by pleading injury in fact, causation, and redressability. In data-breach cases, courts assess whether the breach was intentional, whether the data was misused, and whether the type of information accessed could create a risk of identity theft. A plaintiff seeking damages based on future risk must allege not only a substantial risk of harm but also additional, currently felt concrete harms.
DISCUSSION:
Rule 12(b)(1) permits a party to bring a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The Rule permits a party to assert either a facial or factual challenge. A facial attack challenges subject matter jurisdiction without disputing the facts alleged in the complaint, and it requires the court to consider the allegations of the complaint as true. A factual challenge attacks the factual allegations underlying the complaint’s assertion of jurisdiction, either through the filing of an answer or otherwise presenting competing facts.
The court found the attack was allegedly intentional because a known ransomware group exfiltrated data and posted screenshots, and the information allegedly exposed — such as Social Security numbers, dates of birth, insurance information, and health information — was sensitive enough to create identity-theft risk. However, the court held that Lips did not adequately plead misuse because she did not allege that her own information was posted on the dark web, identify which of her information was leaked, or allege fraudulent charges, unauthorized accounts, increased spam, or comparable misuse.
ANALYSIS:
An injury in fact is an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Where the threatened injury is certainly impending or there is a substantial risk that the harm will occur, allegations of future harm will suffice.
The court’s decision turned on the gap between a generalized breach allegation and a plaintiff-specific injury. The court treated the alleged posting of some patients’ data as insufficient without facts tying the disclosure or misuse to Lips personally.
Because Lips did not plead a substantial risk of future harm plus additional concrete present harms, she lacked standing for both injunctive relief and damages.
CONCLUSION:
The court granted Accu’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The dismissal was based on Lips’s failure to plead injury in fact, and the court declined to reach Rule 12(b)(6) arguments. Because dismissals for lack of standing generally should not be with prejudice, the court allowed Lips an opportunity to amend.
ZALMA OPINION
Although the alleged ransomware attack was intentional and involved information that could create a risk of identity theft, the complaint did not allege that Lips’s own information was posted, misused, or tied to concrete present harms. Standing and an actual injury is required to sustain a law suit. There was clearly a potential of damage to Lips but it was only a potential. A potential for damage does not support litigation and the suit failed.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
To Prove Fraud Material False Statements Must be Proved
Post number 5389
Posted on July 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
Materiality Must Be Judged Objectively.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended a tour van driver and related defendants in an underlying auto-collision action brought by Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC after a low-speed collision involving Silver Bird’s McLaren and a tour van.
Silver Bird alleged the McLaren was making a legal turn and sought damages including repair costs, loss of use, and diminution in value. The defendants’ insurer later became insolvent, and CIGA took over the defense and ultimately paid $25,000 to settle the underlying action.
After settlement, Heath & Yuen filed a ...
To Prove Fraud Material False Statements Must be Proved
Post number 5389
Posted on July 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
Materiality Must Be Judged Objectively.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended a tour van driver and related defendants in an underlying auto-collision action brought by Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC after a low-speed collision involving Silver Bird’s McLaren and a tour van.
Silver Bird alleged the McLaren was making a legal turn and sought damages including repair costs, loss of use, and diminution in value. The defendants’ insurer later became insolvent, and CIGA took over the defense and ultimately paid $25,000 to settle the underlying action.
After settlement, Heath & Yuen filed a ...
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Prisoner’s Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Fatal to Suit
Post number 5393
It Does not Pay to Violate the Conditions of Post-Release Supervision
Posted on July 13, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Monnie Villarreal v. VitalCore; Nancy Unknown, Nurse Practitioner, VitalCore/Jackson County; John Ledbetter, Sheriff; Geneva Drummond, No. 25-60415, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (July 9, 2026) Monnie Villarreal, convicted of conspiracy to commit insurance fraud and later placed on post-release supervision, was arrested for violating the terms of that supervision and detained at the Jackson County Adult Detention Center.
While incarcerated he alleged inadequate diabetes care and later an assault by another inmate, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical providers and correctional officials.
LAW:
The Prison Litigation Reform Act bars a prisoner from bringing a § 1983 action concerning prison conditions until all available administrative remedies are exhausted. ...
Plaintiff Representing Herself Failed to Allege Jurisdiction
Adverse Rulings Alone Almost Never Establish Bias
Post number 5392
Posted on July 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Decheri Hafer v. Farmers Insurance Agency, No. 1:22-cv-0808 KES SKO, United States District Court, E.D. California (June 30, 2026) DeCheri Hafer, proceeding pro se, sued Farmers Insurance Agency alleging perjury, fraud, insurance fraud, and breach of contract.
After screening, the magistrate judge found the complaint deficient and allowed amendment. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint objecting to all magistrate judges, while defendant moved to dismiss.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy was wholly unsubstantiated. Plaintiff did not object and instead sought default. The district court adopted the recommendation, dismissed the action without prejudice, denied default, entered judgment, and closed the case.
More than three years later, Plaintiff moved under Rule 60(b)(4) ...
To Prove Fraud Material False Statements Must be Proved
Post number 5389
Posted on July 8, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video at and at
Materiality Must Be Judged Objectively.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended a tour van driver and related defendants in an underlying auto-collision action brought by Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC after a low-speed collision involving Silver Bird’s McLaren and a tour van.
Silver Bird alleged the McLaren was making a legal turn and sought damages including repair costs, loss of use, and diminution in value. The defendants’ insurer later became insolvent, and CIGA took over the defense and ultimately paid $25,000 to settle the underlying action.
After settlement, Heath & Yuen filed a ...
