Party Notice: Coulter, Ramsey vs Planet Home Lending LLC

On February 17, 2024 a Party Notice was filed involving a dispute between Coulter, Ramsey, and Planet Home Lending Llc, for NEGLIGENCE- OTHER in the District Court of Bradford County.

Preview
Filing # 194275391 E-Filed 03/18/2024 05:33:44 PM

Exhibit A

Electronically Filed Madison Case # 2024000019CAAXMX 03/18/2024 05:33:44 PM
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Documenti Filed 03/18/24 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RAMSEY COULTER, individually, and on
behalf of other similarly situated consumers,

Plaintiff,
Case No. 24-cv-130
Vv.
Removed from Third Judicial
PLANET HOME LENDING, LLC, Circuit for Madison County,
Florida (Case No. 19218243)
Defendant.

DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Planet Home Lending, LLC

(“PHL”), by and through its undersigned counsel, with the consent of Plaintiff

Ramsey Coulter, hereby removes the above-captioned action from the Circuit Court

of the Third Judicial Circuit in and for Madison County, Florida, to the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446, and 1453, on the grounds that federal jurisdiction exists

under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), set forth below is a statement of the grounds for removal.

Further, pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(A), attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of all

processes, pleadings, and orders in this case served in the state court.
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Documenti Filed 03/18/24 Page 2 of 10

I OVERVIEW

1 This is a putative nationwide class action alleging claims against PHL

for negligence, negligence per se, and invasion of privacy in connection with a

purported data breach. See Compl., Ex. A §§ 7-15, 29-71.

2 On February 17, 2024, Plaintiff Ramsey Coulter, individually and on

behalf of others similarly situated, commenced this action in the Florida Circuit

Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in and for Madison County, Florida (Case No.

19218243). Id. On February 22, 2024, the Summons and Complaint was left with

an administrative assistant at PHL’s office in Meriden, Connecticut. See Barrett

Decl., 3. PHL does not agree that such service was properly made, and reserves

all rights regarding same.

3 Plaintiff Coulter brings these claims on behalf of a putative nationwide

class consisting of himself and “[a]ll consumers that had their data compromised

during the 2023 data breach.” Ex. A § 16.

4 The Complaint seeks: (1) certification of the putative class; (2)

“statutory damages; actual damages; punitive damages; litigation costs; and

reasonable attorneys’ fees” and (3) injunctive relief “to ensure that Defendant

adequately maintains the [Personal Identifiable Information] that it maintains, and

prevent identity theft from that which was already stolen.” Ex. A at pp. 12-13.
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Documenti Filed 03/18/24 Page 3 of 10

5 Seven class action lawsuits were previously filed against PHL in federal

court, asserting CAFA jurisdiction and alleging damages arising out of the same data

breach.!

6 PHL, through counsel, specially appears for the purpose of this removal

and reserves any and all defenses, objections, or motions available to PHL under

state or federal law, including, but not limited to, improper service of process under

Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Kostelac v. Allianz Glob. Corp.

& Specialty AG, 517 Fed. App’x 670, 674 n.6 (11th Cir. 2013) (“The removal of an

action from state to federal court does not waive any Rule 12(b) defenses[.]”).

7 As set forth more fully below, this case is properly removed to this

Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because PHL satisfies the jurisdictional and

procedural requirements for removal, and the Court has subject matter jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441.

8 Counsel for PHL have conferred with counsel for Plaintiff who does

not contest the case is subject to removal.

1 See Mathis v. Planet Home Lending, LLC, No. 24-cv-127 (D. Ct.) (Jan. 31, 2024);
Mazzo v. Planet Home Lending, LLC, No. 24-cv-130 (D. Ct.) (Feb. 1, 2024);
Benson v. Planet Home Lending, LLC, No. 24-cv-131 (D. Ct.) (Feb. 1, 2024);
Canepa v. Planet Home Lending, LLC, No. 24-cv-140 (D. Ct.) (Feb. 2, 2024);
Ekola v. Planet Home Lending, LLC, No. 24-cv-145 (D. Ct.) (Feb. 5, 2024); Ward
v. Planet Home Lending, LLC, No. 24-cv-158 (D. Ct.) (Feb. 6., 2024); Cole v.
Planet Home Lending, LLC, et al., No. 24-cv-60269 (S.D. Fla) (Feb. 16, 2024).
3
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Documenti Filed 03/18/24 Page 4 of 10

Il. GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL

9 Plaintiff Coulter’s Complaint is removable to this Court under CAFA.

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453. CAFA extends federal jurisdiction to class actions

where: (1) any member of the proposed class is a citizen of a state different from any

defendant (i.e., minimal diversity exists); (2) the putative class consists of more than

100 members; and (3) the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, aggregating all

class member claims and exclusive of interests and costs. See 28 U.S.C. §§
1332(d)(2), 1332(d)(5)(B). Here, each of these requirements is readily met.

Minimal Diversity

10. First, CAFA’s minimal diversity requirement is satisfied. For purposes

of removal, PHL is a citizen of Delaware and Connecticut because it is organized

under the laws of Delaware and has its principal place of business and headquarters

in Connecticut. See Barrett Decl. § 2; 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (deeming the

citizenship of a limited liability company to be “the State where it has its principal

place of business and the State under whose laws it is organized’’); Heard v. Publix

Supermarkets Inc, No. 19-cv-111, 2019 WL 13440625, at *2 (N.D. Fla. July 15,

2019).
11. Plaintiff Coulter alleges that he “at all relevant times has resided in”

Florida, and thus that he is a citizen of Florida. Ex. A ¥ 5.
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Documenti Filed 03/18/24 Page 5 of 10

12. Accordingly, the requisite minimal diversity under CAFA exists

because Plaintiff Coulter and PHL are citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. §

1332(d)(2)(A).
13. Moreover, Plaintiff is pursuing a nationwide class. It necessarily

follows that class members are citizens of states other than Connecticut and

Delaware, as evidenced by the Cole complaint, which is brought by a citizen of

Alabama. See Cole v. Planet Home Lending, LLC, et al., No. 24-cv-60269, Dkt. No.

1,7 (S.D. Fla) (Feb. 16, 2024).
Number of Class Members

14. Second, CAFA’s requirement that the class include at least 100

members is satisfied. Specifically, Plaintiff Coulter alleges that after “infiltrat[ing]

and access[ing]’” PHL’s systems, hackers “stole the sensitive personal information

. . of thousands of individuals.” Ex. A., J§j 7, 16 (defining class as “all consumers

that had their data compromised”). This is confirmed by judicially noticeable

evidence, which evinces that over 280,000 individuals were notified that their

personal information was affected by the data breach.” Therefore, the size of the

putative class exceeds 100 members. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(5)(B).

Amount in Controversy

? See Office of Maine Attorney General, Data Breach Notification, available at
https://apps.web.maine.gov/online/aeviewer/ME/40/49
1 08687-£648-486b-89¢3-
44ebbf834b54.shtml (last accessed Mar. 10, 2024).

5
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Documenti Filed 03/18/24 Page 6 of 10

15. Third, CAFA’s $5 million aggregated amount-in-controversy

requirement is also met. See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens,

135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014) (“A defendant’s notice of removal need include only a

plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional

threshold.”); id. (“Evidence establishing the [jurisdictional] amount is required by

1446(c)(2)(B) only when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the

defendant’s allegations.”).

16. Based on the allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiff Coulter seeks to

recover “actual, statutory[] and punitive damages, with attorneys’ fees, costs, and

expenses” on behalf of a putative class numbering in the thousands. Ex. A., §§ 7,

15. With 280,000 affected individuals, the $5,000,000 threshold is readily satisfied

if each class member claims entitlement to just $18. See Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza

I, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 770-71 (11th Cir. 2010) (noting that a removing defendant

may support factual allegations, if challenged by the plaintiff or the court, “with

evidence combined with reasonable deductions, reasonable inferences, or other

reasonable extrapolations”); Tapscott v. MS Dealer Serv. Corp., 77 F.3d 1353, 1356-

57 (11th Cir. 1996) (a removing defendant need only prove that the amount in

controversy “more likely than not exceeds the [applicable] jurisdictional

requirement”).
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Documenti Filed 03/18/24 Page 7 of 10

17. As part of his requested relief, Plaintiff Coulter seeks “long-term credit

monitoring services funded by Defendant,” the cost of which, alone, plausibly

exceeds the $5,000,000 threshold for the putative nationwide class. See, e.g.,

Morales v. Conifer Revenue Cycle Sols., LLC, No. 2:23-cv-01987, 2023 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 142888, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2023) (concluding that based on a class

size of 120,000, “the cost of ongoing credit monitoring and identity theft protection

by Equifax and TransUnion alone will exceed the $5 million dollar minimum

required for CAFA”).

18. Accordingly, although PHL contests that Plaintiff Coulter or any

putative class member is entitled to any relief whatsoever, based on Plaintiff's

allegations, it is plausible the amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million threshold

under CAFA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).
No CAFA Exception Applies

19. Plaintiff Coulter bears the burden of showing that an exception to

CAFA jurisdiction applies. Carlsen v. Fla. Health Scis. Ctr. Inc., No. 8:23-CV-559-

WFSJ-JSS, 2023 WL 3057416, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 24, 2023). No such exception

applies here.

Til. THIS NOTICE IS TIMELY FILED

20. The federal removal statute provides that “[t]he notice of removal of a

civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Documenti Filed 03/18/24 Page 8 of 10

defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth

the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, or within 30 days

after the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then

been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant, whichever

period is shorter.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).

21. PHL filed this Notice of Removal within 30 days of the Complaint

being filed on February 17. Accordingly, PHL’s Notice of Removal is timely.

IV. ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVAL ARE MET

22. Venue for purposes of removal is proper in the Northern District of

Florida, Tallahassee Division because the state court action was filed in the Circuit

Court of Madison County, Florida. Thus, this Court is “the district court of the

United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is

pending.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a); 1446(a).

23. This Notice of Removal is signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a).

24. No previous application has been made for the requested relief.

25. A copy of this Notice of Removal will be filed with the Circuit Court

of the Third Judicial Circuit in and for Madison County, and a copy will be provided

to all adverse parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d).
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Documenti Filed 03/18/24 Page 9 of 10

V. CONCLUSION
26. Removal of this action is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1446,

and 1453.

WHEREFORE, PHL hereby removes this action from the Circuit Court of the

Third Judicial Circuit in and for Madison County, Florida, to the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division.

Dated: March 18, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Diana Marie Fassbender
Diana Marie Fassbender
Florida Bar No. 0017095
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1152 15" St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
202-339-8533
dszego@orrick.com
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Document 1 Filed 03/18/24 Page 10 of 10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

filed via the Court’s CM/ECF system, and served via e-mail on the following,

on this 18th day of March 2024.

Matthew Fornaro, P.A.
11555 Heron Bay Blvd., Ste. 200
Coral Springs, FL 33076
mfornaro@fornarolegal.com
954-324-3651

Daniel Zemel
Zemel Law LLC
400 Sylvan Ave., Ste. 200
Englewood Cliifs, NJ 07632
dz@zemellawllc.com
862-271-2664

Counsel for Plaintiff Coulter

/s/ Diana Marie Fassbender
Diana Marie Fassbender

10
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 03/18/24 Page 1 of 18

Exhibit A
oneame i
o- Ses
NN i
oe oe
asei 11.30
SEARCH
E Rt
1
i
oe —
MiL24
wv}
a CORD
a
a i
me ed 0 ao

a a
—-
et ser aa
rr i cs, 4 4
cre ORT 3 i i
ae a eeTe aa
Now Search BxpondAl
oo on ss ss coe a oe cece oe vn a
ase Number Filed Date Case Type ‘status Contonted ary Ta
ARORECIOCOO OADM
(zea se0cm RCNA) Treas ‘reut Co 0 YES
om os os
he Filing Tato Goscription ‘Contostod dudgmantDato
arraa NEGUGENGE- OTE ves
os sce icin a Sa
Pasty Name oe Party Typeee wo ‘Attorney a a er
OUSLAS, WESLEY RAYwOND sunée
Coutts, Ramsey Search This Party, PLARTIFE FORNARO, MATTHEW esoest
Plana ome ending LLC Sage This Party DEFENDANT nee os ceo ses ons cesses se ste
Dockets oo won oo on
terage Doct ‘etion Dats . ‘escripton Pages
‘selosz024 RETURN OF SERVICE AFFIDAVIT
oniswa028 Judga: DOUGLAS , WEBLEY R Aesignad
caevz02s Payment reoolved: $400.00 Reveizt NumberMX 2024001406,
caravans ‘Assessment Taal Assussed $40 .0 Balance Remalving 80.99
arte. COMPLAINT
ewstrieans VIL COVER SHEET
curries awossmant 1 aesaaood at eum $460.00
oat rae ans 40702 :AQDOORIGARM Files with Gert on 2/47
sat a So so
Judge saga story co we oo
‘Aseigned Dato on sone Wedronwy Dot Date ‘adiial Ofioor pe
[eonecoza DOUGLAS, WESLEY &
es es
Court vente
oe oe =
“Event Date dugge Docket Type Loeeaion Prosecttor ~ Defendant Attorney
No eeu found a a ee oe on ee
Financial Seminary o
Financial Summa
aero [ear aes [Pato Date: $400.00 [Saiance Gus: 80.96.
Reetintion
= aE [Total a 50,00, a [Ped to Date: 10.08 _[Selence Due: $0.09,
Financial Details
count ‘Assosoraent Duo ‘Assescment Pald to Date tution Due Restitution Paid Date Last Payment ae
so $400.00 $400.90 $000 $0.99 ce we oe
i i i i
Roopen History
2 oo
wo Reopen Date a Reopen Clove Date vm vm Reopen Reason
Ne le Faure .
++ Puma oP Rar an Marie Role of Cort Pre, rein hl ave ho irr ax png er oni ny ot eae Ugh ht nro, Pr nao nape rman ples cenit he Ck of Coe

€ a-
ae
141
Filing # 192189843 EF eU CATT AUSA O83 LOG PAN 12 Filed 03/18/24 Page 3 of 18

FORM 1.997. CIVIL COVER SHEET

The civil cover sheet and the information contained in it neither replace nor supplement the filing
and service of pleadings or other documents as required by law. This form must be filed by the
plaintiff or petitioner with the Clerk of Court for the purpose of reporting uniform data pursuant
to section 25.075, Florida Statutes. (Sce instructions for completion.)

1 CASE STYLE

IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MADISON COUNTY, FLORIDA

Ramsey Coulte
Plaintiff Case #
Judge
VS.
Planet Home Lending LLC
Defendant

Ik. AMOUNT OF cam
Please indicate the estimated amount of the claim, rotinded to the nearest dollar. The estimated amount of
the claim is requested for data collection and clerical pragessing purposes only. The amount of the claim
shall not be used | for ~ other | PUIpOse.

ll TYPE OF CASE (If the case fits more than one type of case. select the most
definitive category.) If the most descriptive label is a subcategory (is indented under a broader
category), place an x on both the main category and subcategory lines

Electronically Filed Madison Case # 202400001 9CAAXMX 02/17/2024 06:32:00 PM
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 03/18/24 Page 4 of 18

CIRCUIT CIVIL

O Condominium
OC Contracts and indebtedness
O Eminent domain
Cc Auto negligence
& Negligence—other
© Business governance
© Business torts
9 Environmental/Toxic tort
© Third party indemnification
2 Construction defect
Mass tort
1 Negligent security
© Nursing home negligence
o Premises liability---commercial
© Premises liability--residential
O Products liability
CO Real Property/Mortgage foreclosure
“3 Commercial foreclosure
© Homestead residential foreclosure —
Yon-homestead residential foreclosure
©) Other real property actions

Professional nalpeagticg
a Malpractic business
© Malpracti medical
o Malpractice—other professional —
O Other
i Antitrust/Trade regulation
3 Business transactions -
© Constitutional challenge—statute or ordinance
3 Constitutional challenge—-proposed amendment
2 Corporate trusts
© Discrimination—employment or other
O Insurance claims
C Intellectual property
O Libel/Slander
O Shareholder derivative action
O Securities litigation
O Trade secrets
O Trust litigation

COUNTY CIVIL

O Small Claims up to $8,000
O Civil
O Real property/Mortgage foreclosure
-2-
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 03/18/24 Page 5 of 18

O Replevins
O Evictions
O Residential Evictions
C) Non-residential Evictions
O Other civil (non-monetary)

COMPLEX BUSINESS COURT

This action is appropriate for assignment to Complex Business Court as delineated and mandated by the
Administrative Order. Yes No&

IV. REMEDIES SOUGHT (check all that apply)
& Monetary:
© Nonmonetary declaratory or injunctive relief;
] Punitive

V. NUMBER OF CAUSES OF AcTiO’ L i
(Specify)

vi IS THIS C ASE. A Lass ACTION LAWSUIT? 28
* yes
cl no

VIL HAS NOTICE OF ANY KNOWN RELA’ TED CASE BEEN FILED?
Ano
ol yes If* “Yess, vist all relate cases by name, case number, and court.

VILL. 1S JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT?
Byes.
Ci no

Ix. DOES THIS CASE INVOLVE ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE?
0 yes
XI no

I CERTIFY that the information I have provided in this cover sheet is accurate to the best of
my knowledge and belief, and that I have read and will comply with the requirements of
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425

Signature: s/ Matthew Fornaro Fla. Bar # 650641
Attorney or party (Bar # if attorney)

Matthew Fornaro 02/17/2024
(type or print name) Date

-3-
Filing # 192189843 EF ied CATT AUSA WE: 3 LOG PAA" 12 Filed 03/18/24 Page 6 of 18

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MADISON COUNTY, FLORIDA

RAMSEY COULTER, individually, and on a Case No. nt
behalf of other similarly situated consumers,

Plaintiff,

Vv.

PLANET HOME LENDING, LLC,

Defendant.
OR ok OR OR ok OR Kk OR kk kOe OF te ek Oe OR

Plaintiff, Ramsey Coulter, (hereinafter “Plant alleges:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. With this action, Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the Harms it caused

Plaintiff in a massive and preventable data breach of Defendant’s inadequately protected

computer network. : 5

ag viise ICTION AND VENUE
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant conducts business in

the state of Florida.

Jurisdiction is proper in this Court as this is an action for damages with an amount in

controversy that is more than $30,000.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Florida Statute Section 47.011 as all events relevant

to this case occurred in Madison County, Florida.

Electronically Filed Madison Case # 2024000019CAAXMX 02/17/2024 06:32:00 PM
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 03/18/24 Page 7 of 18

PARTIES

Plaintiffis a natural person who at all relevant times has resided in Madison, Florida

Defendant Planet Home Lending, LLC., (“PHL” or “Defendant”), is a corporation that

regularly conducts business in Florida

FACTUAL STATEMENT

On November 15 2023, hackers infiltrated and accessed the inadequately protected computer

systems of Defendant and stole the sensitive personal information (“Personal Information

“PI”) of thousands of individuals.

The PII taken by the hackers includes: names, addrisses, dates of. birth, and Social Security

numbers, loan number, and finaneial accountt information,

In short, thanks to Defendant’ 'S failure to protects tiie Breadh, Vietims" Personal Information,

cyber criminals were able to: steal everything they ‘could possibly need to commit nearly every

conceivable form of “identity theft fad wreak ‘havoc on the financial and personal lives of

potentially millions of, siavidian

10. Defendant’s conduct-—fi ing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure their

computer systems were protected, failing to take adequate steps to prevent and stop the breach.

failing to timely detect the breach, failing to disclose the material facts that they did not have

adequate computer systems and security practices to safeguard the Personal Information,

failing to honor their repeated promises and representations to protect the Breach Victims'

Personal Information, caused substantial harm and injuries to Plaintiff.

11 As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff has suffered damages. For example, Plaintiff has

experienced a flood of spam telephone calls from unknown persons since the Data Breach.
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 03/18/24 Page 8 of 18

Plaintiffs personal bank account was also hacked. Now that the Personal Information has been

released into the criminal cyber domains, Plaintiffis at imminent risk of identity theft. This

risk is likely to continue, which will require Plaintiff to constantly remain vigilant in order to

prevent being victimized for years to come

12 Plaintiff brings this lawsuit to hold Defendant responsible for its negligent and reckless failure

to use reasonable, current cybersecurity measures to protect Plaintiff's Personal Information

13 Because Defendant presented such a soft target to cybercriminals, Plaintiff has already been

subjected to violations of their privacy, fraud, and identity theft, or have been exposed to a

heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft Plaintiff must now and in the future,

spend time to more closely monitor theig credit ports financial aoeoants, phone lines, and

online accounts to guard against identity theft.

14 Plaintiff has also ineurted enter pocket costs fof among oer things, purchasing credit

monitoring service credit freezes, credit repos. or other protective measures to deter and

detect identity theft.

15 Plaintiff deals actual damages, statutory damages, and punitive damages, with attomey fees.

costs, and expenses under negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duties, breach of

confidence, breach of implied contract, and invasion of privacy. Plaintiff also seeks injunctive

relief, including significant improvements to Defendant's data security systems, future annual

audits, and long-term credit monitoring services funded by Defendant, and other remedies as

the Court sees fit.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

The Class
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 03/18/24 Page 9 of 18

16 Plaintiff seeks certification of the class, initially defined as follows:

All consumers that had their data compromised during the 2023 data breach.

17 Excluded from the Class is Defendant herein, and any person, firm, trust, corporation or other

entity related to or affiliated with Defendant, including, without limitation, persons who are

officers, directors, employees, associates or partners of Defendant.

Numerosity

18 Upon information and belief, Defendants information security system: was breached due to

flawed policies, impacting many of Defendant’s clients. The members atiite Class, therefore,

are believed to be so numerous that joinder of all members is hpracticable.

19 The exact number and identities of the members of the Class are unknown at this time and can

only be ascertained through discovery. ienifieation of the, member of the Class is a matter

capable of ministerial derenine on from Defendant's records, ‘

Common Questions of Law and Fact

20. There are duestions of law and fact edmmon to the class that predominates over any questions

affecting only ‘in dual Class members. These common questions of law and fact include,

without limitation: { i) whether Defendant failed to adequately protect the information it held

in its system; (ii) whether Plaintiff and the Class have been injured by Defendant’s conduct;

(iii) whether Plaintiff and the Class have sustained damages and are entitled to restitution as a

result of Defendant’s wrongdoing and, if so, what is the proper measure and appropriate

statutory formula to be applied in determining such damages and restitution; and (iv) whether

Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to declaratory and/or injunctive relief.

Typicality
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 03/18/24 Page 10 of 18

21 Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class, and Plaintiff has no

interests adverse or antagonistic to the interests of other members of the Class.

Pp. ing t Interests of 1

22. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent the Class members’ interests in that Plaintiff's

counsel is experienced and, further, anticipates no impediments in the pursuit and maintenance

of the Class Action as sought herein.

Proceeding Via Class Action is Superior and Advisable

23 A class action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims

herein asserted.

24, The members of the Class are generally, unsophisticated individuals; whose rights will not be

vindicated in the absence of a Class Action.

25 Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would create the risk of

inconsistent or varyi iz tdludications result in the establishment of inconsistent or varying

standards forthe patties.
26. A Class Aelon will neil a lari number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their

common claims in single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the duplication of

effort and expense that numerous individual actions would engender. Class treatment also will

permit the adjudication of relatively small claims by many Class members who could not

otherwise afford to seek legal redress for the wrongs complained of herein.

27 Absent a Class Action, the members of the Class will continue to suffer losses borne from

Defendant’s breaches of Class members’ statutorily protected rights as well as monetary

damages, thus allowing and enabling: (a) Defendant’s conduct to proceed and; (b) Defendant

to further enjoy the benefit of its ill-gotten gains.
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 03/18/24 Page 11 of 18

28, Defendant has acted, and will act, on grounds generally applicable to the entire Class, thereby

making appropriate a final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to

the Class as a whole

COUNT I
NEGLIGENCE

29, Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein

30. Defendant solicited, gathered, and stored the Personal Information of Plaintiff.

31 Defendant knew, or should have known, of the risks inherent in collecting and storing the

Personal Information of Plaintiff and the importanre «of adequate security

32. Defendant were well aware of the fact that hackers routinely atempred to access Personal

Information without authorizati _ Defendant also knew about numerous, well publicized data

breaches wherein hackers stole the Personal Information from companies who held or stored

such infonnation

33 Defendant owed ‘duties of care to Plamtiet whose Personal Information was entrusted to it.

Defendant’s s duties indtted the following

a. To exer reasonable care in obtaining, retaining, securing, safeguarding, deleting

and protecting the Personal Information in its possession;

To protect the Personal Information in its possession using reasonable and adequate

security procedures and systems:

To adequately and properly train its employees to avoid phishing emails:

To use adequate email security systems, including DMARC enforcement and

Sender Policy Framework enforcement, to protect against phishing emails
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 03/18/24 Page 12 of 18

To adequately and properly train its employees regarding how to properly and

securely transmit and store Personal Information:

To train its employees not to store Personal Information in their email inboxes

longer than absolutely necessary for the specific purpose that it was sent or

received

To implement processes to quickly detect a data breach, security incident, or

intrusion; and

To promptly notify Plaintiff and Class members of any data breach, security

incident, or intrusion that affected or may have affected their Personal Information.

34, Because Defendant knew that a security incident breach or intrusion upon its systems would

potentially damage thousands, of ‘consumers diliose information Defendant held, including

Plaintiff, it had a duty ¢to ay protect their Personal §fonhation

35 Defendant owed a ‘duty of care not to subject PlaintifFand the Class to an unreasonable risk of

harm: because they were foresecable ane probabi victims of any inadequate security practices.

36.Defendant
Di Kaew, or should have Eilon, that its security practices and computer systems did

not adequately safeguard tie Personal Information of Plaintiff.

37 Defendant breached its duties of care by failing to provide fair, reasonable, or adequate

computer systems and security practices to safeguard the Personal Information of Plaintiff.

38, Defendant breached its duties of care by failing to provide prompt notice of the Data Breach

to the persons whose personal information was compromised.

39, Defendant acted with reckless disregard for the security of the Personal Information of Plaintiff

because Defendant knew or should have known that their computer systems and data security
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 03/18/24 Page 13 of 18

practices were not adequate to safeguard the Personal Information that it collected and stored.

which hackers were attempting to access.

40. Defendant acted with reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff by failing to provide prompt

and adequate notice of the data breach so that they could take measures to protect themsclves

from damages caused by the fraudulent use of Personal Information compromised in the Data

Breach

41 Defendant also had independent duties under federal and state law requiting them to reasonably

safeguard Plaintiffs Personal Information and promptly notify them about the Data Breach

42 As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligent conduct, Plaintiff has suffered

damages and remains at imminent risk of further harm.

43 The injury and harm that Plaintiff, has suffered (as alleged above) wasDccasthably foreseeable.

44 The injury and harm that Plaintift suffered (as alleged above). was the direct and proximate

result of Defendant’ 5 earn conduct,

45 Plaintift hae suffered: injury and are entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at trial

NTU
EGLIGE CE PER SE

46 Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

47 Pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTCA”), 15 U.S.C. § 45, Defendant had a

duty to provide fair and adequate computer systems and data security to safeguard the Personal

Information of Plaintiff.

48 The FTCA prohibits “unfair practices in or affecting commerce,” including, as interpreted

and enforced by the FTC, the unfair act or practice by businesses, such as Defendant, of failing
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 03/18/24 Page 14 of 18

to use reasonable measures to protect Personal Information. The FTC publications and orders

described above also formed part of the basis of Defendant’s duty in this regard.

49 Defendant solicited, gathered, and stored the Personal Information of Plaintiff as part of its

business of servicing mortgages

50. Defendant violated the FTCA by failing to use reasonable measures to protect the Personal

Information of Plaintiff and not complying with applicable industry standards, as described

herein.

Sl Defendant breached its dutics to Plaintiff under the FTCA and other state data security and

privacy statutes by failing to provide fair, reasonable, or adequate computer systems and data

security practices to safeguard Breach Victim $ Personal Information, -

52. Defendant’s failure to comply with
\ applicable ids and regulations constitutes negligence per

Se.

53 Plaintiff are within he class of Persons that the FTCA was intended to protect.

54. The harm that Sgenred as a result oF the Dat Breach isi the type of harm the FTCA, the state

data preach priv acy statutes were fuBidea to guard against.

55 Defendant breached. its Sauties to Plaintiff under these laws by failing to provide fair,

reasonable, or adequate computer systems and data security practices to safeguard Plaintiff's

Personal Information.

56. Defendant breached their duties to Plaintiff by negligently and unreasonably delaying and

failing to provide notice expeditiously and/or as soon as practicable to Plaintiff of the Data

Breach.

57. Defendant’s violation of the FTCA, state data security statutes, and/or the state data breach

notification statutes constitute negligence per se
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 03/18/24 Page 15 of 18

58. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence per se, Plaintiff has suffered, and

continues to suffer, damages arising from the Data Breach by, inter alia, having to spend time

reviewing his bank accounts and credit reports for unauthorized activity; spend time and incur

costs to place and re-new a “freeze” on his credit; be inconvenienced by the credit freeze,

which requires him to spend extra time unfreezing their account with each credit bureau any

time he wants to make use of his own credit; and becoming a victim of identity theft, which

may cause damage to their credit and ability to obtain insurance, medical care, and jobs

59 The injury and harm that Plaintiff suffered was the direct and proximate result of Defendant’s

negligence per se.

int
INVASI OF PRIVACY

60. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

61 Plaintiff hada legitim natec expectation of privacy reearding the PIl and was accordingly entitled

to the protection of this information agains disclosure to unauthorized third parties.

62. Defendant owed a duty to Plainitt to keep the PI confidential.

63 Defendant’s eke: and negligent failure to protect Plaintiff's PII constitutes an intentional

interference with Plaintiff's interest in solitude or seclusion, either as to their person or as to

their private affairs or concerns, of a kind that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

64. In failing to protect Plaintiff's PII, Defendant acted with a knowing state of mind when it

permitted the Data Breach because it knew its information security practices were inadequate.

65 Because Defendant failed to properly safeguard Plaintiff's PI, Defendant had notice and knew

that its inadequate cybersecurity practices would cause injury to Plaintiff.

66. Defendant knowingly did not notify Plaintiff in a timely fashion about the Data Breach.
Case 4:24-cv-00130-MW-MAF Document 1-1 Filed 03/18/24 Page 16 of 18

67 As a proximate result of Defendant’s acts and omissions, Plaintiff’s private and sensitive PII

was stolen by a third party and is now available for disclosure and redisclosure without

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Party Notice: Coulter, Ramsey vs Planet Home Lending LLC

Preview

Case Info

Parties