Thursday, December 16, 2010

9th Circuit and a recent Opinion Regarding "Injury in Fact" Requirements

Worth a read, a case involving Starbucks, a stolen laptop and ID Theft.   Hollow win for the Plaintiff.

The Ninth Circuit noted that under Washington law, "actual loss or damage is an essential element" of a negligence claim. The Court noted that  plaintiffs waived the argument that "anxiety constitutes actionable injury.

Find the decision here:

"Although we have not previously determined whether an increased risk of identity theft constitutes an injury-in-fact, we have addressed future harm in other contexts, holding that “the possibility of future injury may be sufficient to confer standing on plaintiffs; threatened injury constitutes ‘injury in fact.’ ” Cent. Delta Water Agency, 306 F.3d at 947. More specifically, [a] plaintiff may allege a future injury in order to comply with [the injury-in-fact] requirement, but only if he or she “is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the challenged . . . conduct and the injury or threat of injury is both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical."