Barghini v. Anoka County et al

Filing 109

ORDER: Defendant Anoka County's motion to dismiss [ECF No. 23 ] is GRANTED.The motion to dismiss of Defendant Cities of Bloomington, Brainerd, Brooklyn Park, Burnsville, Champlin, Farmington, Hopkins, Minnetonka, Mound, New Brighton, North St. Paul, Robbinsdale, Rochester, and White Bear Lakes and Dakota Communications Center [ECF No. 28 ] is GRANTED. Defendant Hennepin County's motion to dismiss [ECF No. 34 ] is GRANTED. Defendant City of St. Paul's motion to dismiss [ECF N o. 44 ] is GRANTED. Defendant Ramsey County's motion to dismiss [ECF No. 45 ] is GRANTED. Defendant Dakota County's motion to dismiss [ECF No. 49 ] is GRANTED. Defendant City of Minneapolis's motion to dismiss [ECF No. 62 ] is G RANTED. The motion to dismiss of Defendants Stearns County and Wright County [ECF No. 67 ] is GRANTED. Defendant City of Edina's motion for judgment on the pleadings [ECF No. 84 ] is GRANTED. Defendants Michael Campion and Ramona Dohman 9;s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 100 ] is GRANTED. Counts II, III, IV, and V of Plaintiff's Complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice as to all Defendants. Count 1 of Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants Michael Campion and Ramona Dohman is DISMISSED with prejudice. For all other Defendants, Count I is DISMISSED with prejudice as to all claims based on retrievals of Plaintiff's protected data prior to January 31, 2010, and otherwise without prejudice. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on August 28, 2014. (CBC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Laureen Cay Barghini,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil No. 14-297 (JNE/HB)
ORDER

Anoka County, City of Bloomington,
City of Brainerd, City of Brooklyn Park,
City of Burnsville, City of Champlin,
Dakota County, Dakota Communications
Center, City of Edina, City of Farmington,
Hennepin County, City of Hopkins, City
of Minneapolis, City of Minnetonka, City
of Mound, City of New Brighton, City of
North St. Paul, Ramsey County, City of
Robbinsdale, City of Rochester, City of
St. Paul, Stearns County, City of White Bear
Lake, Wright County, Michael Campion,
Ramona Dohman, John and Jane Does (1-250),
Entity Does (1-50), Department of Public
Safety Does (1-30),
Defendants.
Plaintiff Laureen Cay Barghini filed this action alleging impermissible retrievals
by local law enforcement personnel and other public employees of her private motor
vehicle record data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (“DPS”).
Barghini’s complaint is one of multiple analogous complaints recently filed in this district
and centered around alleged violations of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”),
18 U.S.C. § 2721 et seq. See Roschen v. Wabasha County, Civ. No. 13-2490, 2014 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 87005, at *8 n.4 (D. Minn. June 26, 2014) (citing examples and noting that
many of the complaints have been dismissed in whole or in part). Barghini’s complaint
alleges that employees of each of the 24 named entity Defendants accessed her private
information without a proper purpose between 2003 and 2012. The number of accesses

by each entity varied from one to 34 times during that time period. 1 The complaint also
names the former and current DPS Commissioners, Michael Campion and Ramona
Dohman, as Defendants.
According to her complaint, “Barghini is a radio personality on MyTalk 107.1,
which airs in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Area and is podcasted, thus accessible
worldwide.” Compl. ¶ 46. She regularly interacts with celebrities on the radio and has
been hosting a show called the “Lori and Julia” show for twelve years. Id. ¶¶ 48-49. She
has been featured in newspaper and magazine articles and her professional image has
appeared in several advertisements promoting the “Lori and Julia” show. Id. ¶¶ 50-51.
The complaint alleges that Barghini has never been charged with or suspected of
committing a crime in the cities and counties represented by each entity Defendant. It
also alleges that she has never been involved in any civil, criminal, administrative, or
arbitral proceedings involving Defendants and disclaims the existence of any legitimate
reason for their retrievals of her personal information. Based on her allegations of the
impermissible retrievals of her private data, Barghini’s complaint asserts one count for
violations of the DPPA, three counts pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a count for state
law invasion of privacy.

1

The complaint alleges the following retrieval numbers for each entity Defendant:
Anoka County – 1, Compl. ¶ 65; City of Bloomington – 34, id. ¶ 69; City of Brainerd – 2,
id. ¶ 73; City of Brooklyn Park – 2, id. ¶ 77; City of Burnsville – 10, id. ¶ 81; City of
Champlin – 1, id. ¶ 85; Dakota County – 11, id. ¶ 89; Dakota Communications Center –
1, id. ¶ 93; City of Edina – 1, id. ¶ 97; City of Farmington – 3, id. ¶ 101; Hennepin
County – 18, id. ¶ 105; City of Hopkins – 2, id. ¶ 109; City of Minneapolis – 21, id. ¶
113; City of Minnetonka – 15, id. ¶ 117; City of Mound – 3, id. ¶ 121; City of New
Brighton – 1, id. ¶ 125; City of North St. Paul – 1, id. ¶ 129; Ramsey County – 11, id. ¶
133; City of Robbinsdale – 1, id. ¶ 137; City of Rochester – 2, id. ¶ 141; City of St. Paul
– 2, id. ¶ 145; Stearns County – 2, id. ¶ 149; City of White Bear Lake – 10, id. ¶ 153; and
Wright County – 1, id. ¶ 157.
2

All named Defendants have moved to dismiss Barghini’s complaint for failure to
state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and/or for judgment
on the pleadings, pursuant to Rule 12(c). See ECF Nos. 23, 28, 34, 44, 45, 49, 62, 67, 84,
100. Many have requested severance of the claims against them in the alternative. Those
motions are presently before the Court. The issues raised by the motions have been
extensively discussed in connection with other DPPA cases and need not be repeated in
detail here.
Barghini’s complaint fails to state a DPPA claim against any Defendant. Her
DPPA claims based on retrievals of her data that occurred more than four years before
the filing of her complaint on January 31, 2014, are barred by the applicable statute of
limitations. See Potocnik v. Carlson, Civ. No. 13-2093, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38018, at
*22-34 (D. Minn. Mar. 24, 2014); Kost v. Hunt, 983 F. Supp. 2d 1121, 1126-30 (D.
Minn. 2013). Her DPPA claims against the DPS Commissioners stem from her
allegations that they failed to adequately control and monitor access to her private data,
but such allegations fail to state a violation of the DPPA. See Kendall v. Anoka County,
Civ. No. 14-247, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111781, at *12-14 (D. Minn. Aug. 13, 2014);
Kiminski v. Hunt, Civ. No. 13-185, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157829, at *9-25 (D. Minn.
Sept. 20, 2013). For any remaining claims, the allegations of Barghini’s complaint are
not materially distinguishable from those of the news anchor and sports reporter whose
claims were dismissed in Mitchell v. Aitkin County, Civil No. 13-2167, 2014 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 27089 (D. Minn. Mar. 4, 2014). Those claims will be dismissed for the reasons
stated in Mitchell.

3

Barghini’s § 1983 and state law claims also cannot survive Defendants’ motions
to dismiss. The complaint alleges § 1983 claims for alleged violations of Barghini’s
rights under the DPPA as well as the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The DPPA
forecloses enforcement of any rights created by it via § 1983 and the alleged retrievals of
Barghini’s motor vehicle record data do not amount to violations of her constitutional
rights. See Potocnik, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38018, at *34-48; Kiminski, 2013 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 157829, at *25-42. Mere retrievals of motor vehicle record data also do not meet
the threshold of offensiveness necessary for a viable invasion of privacy claim. See Bass
v. Anoka County, Civ. No. 13-860, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21846, at *21-23 (D. Minn.
Feb. 21, 2014).
Therefore, Defendants’ motions will be granted.
CONCLUSION
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated
above, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

Defendant Anoka County’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 23] is
GRANTED.

2.

The motion to dismiss of Defendant Cities of Bloomington, Brainerd,
Brooklyn Park, Burnsville, Champlin, Farmington, Hopkins, Minnetonka,
Mound, New Brighton, North St. Paul, Robbinsdale, Rochester, and White
Bear Lakes and Dakota Communications Center [ECF No. 28] is
GRANTED.

3.

Defendant Hennepin County’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 34] is
GRANTED.

4.

Defendant City of St. Paul’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 44] is
GRANTED.

5.

Defendant Ramsey County’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 45] is
GRANTED.

4

6.

Defendant Dakota County’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 49] is
GRANTED.

7.

Defendant City of Minneapolis’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 62] is
GRANTED.

8.

The motion to dismiss of Defendants Stearns County and Wright County
[ECF No. 67] is GRANTED.

9.

Defendant City of Edina’s motion for judgment on the pleadings [ECF No.
84] is GRANTED.

10.

Defendants Michael Campion and Ramona Dohman’s motion to dismiss
[ECF No. 100] is GRANTED.

11.

Counts II, III, IV, and V of Plaintiff’s Complaint are DISMISSED with
prejudice as to all Defendants.

12.

Count 1 of Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants Michael Campion and
Ramona Dohman is DISMISSED with prejudice. For all other
Defendants, Count I is DISMISSED with prejudice as to all claims based
on retrievals of Plaintiff’s protected data prior to January 31, 2010, and
otherwise without prejudice.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: August 28, 2014
s/Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge

5