Greenstate Credit Union v. Hy-Vee, Inc.
Filing
78
ORDER granting #64 Motion to Dismiss. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge David S. Doty on 7/19/2021. (DLO)
CASE 0:20-cv-00621-DSD-DTS Doc. 78 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CIVIL NO. 20-621(DSD/DTS)
Greenstate Credit Union
on Behalf of Itself and
All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
Hy-Vee, Inc.
Defendant.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. and Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP,
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN
55401, counsel for plaintiff.
Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. and Baker & Hostetler LLP, 1801
California Street, Suite 4400, Denver, CO 80202, counsel for
defendant.
The matter is before the court upon defendant Hy-Vee, Inc.’s
motion to dismiss.
Based on a review of the file, record, and
proceedings herein, and for the following reasons, the court grants
the motion.
BACKGROUND
This class action dispute arises out of Hy-Vee’s handling of
a data breach that exposed consumers’ credit card data.
Plaintiff
GreenState Federal Credit Union is a federally chartered credit
union with its principal place of business in Iowa.
Compl. ¶ 7.
Hy-Vee is incorporated in Iowa and has its principal place of
CASE 0:20-cv-00621-DSD-DTS Doc. 78 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 18
business in Iowa.
Id. ¶ 12.
Hy-Vee operates supermarkets,
convenience stores, and gas stations, with 240 retail stores in
eight states, including Minnesota.
Id. ¶ 13.
GreenState has twenty-six branch locations, all located in
Iowa.
Courtney Decl. ¶ 2; ECF No. 55, at 3.
GreenState membership
is open to: (1) individuals living and working in Iowa, as well as
some counties in Illinois or Wisconsin that border Iowa; (2)
University of Iowa students, staff, and alumni; and (3) direct
relatives of current members.
Id. ¶¶ 3-5; ECF No. 55, at 3.
1,158
of approximately 210,000 members - about one-half of one percent
- have Minnesota addresses.
Id. ¶ 7; ECF No. 55, at 3.
Thirty-eight of Hy-Vee’s 264 stores are in Minnesota. Tingley
Decl. ¶¶ 1, 3; ECF No. 55, at 3.
12.38% of Hy-Vee’s revenue comes
from Minnesota, and 13.77% of Hy-Vee’s employees work in Minnesota.
Id. ¶ 3;
ECF No. 55, at 4.
Hy-Vee’s information technology
department, chief technology officer, and information security
team operate in Iowa.
Id. ¶¶ 7-8;
ECF No. 55, at 4.
They are
responsible for decisions regarding Hy-Vee’s data and information
security policy and practices, all of which are made in Iowa.
Id.
¶¶ 6-10; ECF No. 55, at 4.
In payment card transactions, there are four primary parties:
the merchant, the acquiring bank, the card network, and the card
issuer.
Compl. ¶¶ 19-20.
In this context, Hy-Vee is a merchant
that requests authorization of the transaction from the card’s
2
CASE 0:20-cv-00621-DSD-DTS Doc. 78 Filed 07/19/21 Page 3 of 18
issuer.
Id.
An acquiring bank contracts with the merchant to
process the transaction.
Id. ¶ 19.
Card networks, such as Visa
or MasterCard, are payment processors.
Id.
An acquiring bank
receives purchase receipts from the merchant, pays the merchant,
and
forwards
the
receipt
to
the
card’s
issuer.
Id.
¶
20.
GreenState is a card issuer, which issues payment cards to its
members
and
reimburses
authorizes
the
acquiring
transaction
bank,
member’s payment card account.
and
requests
posts
the
from
merchants,
charges
on
its
Id. ¶¶ 19-20.
From November 2018 to August 2019, computer hackers installed
malicious software (malware) on Hy-Vee’s point-of-sale systems.
Id.
¶
2.
Using
this
malware,
the
hackers
accessed
Hy-Vee
customers’ card data, which included the cardholder’s name, card
number, and expiration date.
Id. ¶ 1.
GreenState alleges that
its members used their payment cards to make purchases at Hy-Vee
locations in Minnesota, and “at least one payment card issued by
[GreenState] was compromised ... after being used by a member at
a Hy-Vee location in Minnesota.”
Id. ¶ 16.
GreenState alleges that Hy-Vee failed to implement adequate
data security measures to protect against data breaches, and failed
to timely discover and contain the breach. Id. ¶¶ 3-4. GreenState
specifically asserts that Hy-Vee “refused to implement certain
best practices, failed to upgrade critical security systems, used
outdated
point-of-sale
systems,
3
ignored
warnings
about
the
CASE 0:20-cv-00621-DSD-DTS Doc. 78 Filed 07/19/21 Page 4 of 18
vulnerability of its computer network, and disregarded and/or
violated
applicable
industry
standards.”
Id.
¶
3.
Hy-Vee
allegedly also failed to: hire qualified information technology
professionals,
respond
to
warnings
about
its
systems’
susceptibility to hackers, implement protection protocols against
malware installation, install adequate monitoring software, and to
comply with industry and Federal Trade Commission data security
standards.
Id. ¶¶ 32, 36-46.
GreenState alleges Hy-Vee’s failures harmed it - and other
financial institutions - because GreenState was required to cancel
compromised cards, reissue new cards, and reimburse members for
fraudulent charges.
Id. ¶¶ 5, 49.
GreenState also alleges that
it suffered direct property damage to its payment cards and costs
due to lost interest and transaction fees.
GreenState
commenced
this
action
Id. ¶ 10.
on
February
27,
2020,
alleging claims under the Minnesota Plastic Card Security Act
(PCSA),
common
law
negligence,
negligence
per
se,
and
for
declaratory and injunctive relief. On April 23, 2020, Hy-Vee moved
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to
transfer venue.
ECF No. 55.
ECF No. 19.
The court denied Hy-Vee’s motion.
Hy-Vee now moves to dismiss the complaint for failure
to state a claim.
4
CASE 0:20-cv-00621-DSD-DTS Doc. 78 Filed 07/19/21 Page 5 of 18
DISCUSSION
I.
Standard of Review
To survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.”
Gallagher v. City of
Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2012) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
“A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff [has pleaded] factual content that allows the court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)).
Although
a
complaint
need
not
contain
detailed
factual
allegations, it must raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.
See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
“[L]abels and conclusions
or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action”
are not sufficient to state a claim.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
“When considering ... a motion to dismiss ... the court
generally must ignore materials outside the pleadings, but it may
consider some materials that are part of the public record or do
not
contradict
necessarily
the
embraced
complaint,
by
the
as
well
as
pleadings.”
materials
Miller
v.
that
are
Redwood
Toxicology Lab., Inc., 688 F.3d 928, 931 (8th Cir. 2012) (internal
quotations and citations omitted) (citing Porous Media Corp. v.
5
CASE 0:20-cv-00621-DSD-DTS Doc. 78 Filed 07/19/21 Page 6 of 18
Pall Corp., 186 F.3d 1077, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999)).
Courts may
consider “matters incorporated by reference or integral to the
claim, items subject to judicial notice, matters of public record,
orders, [and] items appearing in the record of the case ... without
converting the motion into one for summary judgment.”
Id. at 931,
n.3 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting 5B Charles Alan Wright
& Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357 (3d ed.
2004)). Therefore, the court may consider the Courtney and Tingley
declarations that were filed in support of or opposition to Hy-Vee’s previous motion to dismiss or transfer venue. 1
See id.
(considering the factual record created by a motion for temporary
restraining order, preliminary injunction, and expedited discovery
for a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)).
II.
Analysis
Hy-Vee argues that this suit should be dismissed because Iowa
substantive law applies under choice of law rules, and GreenState
fails to state claims under Iowa law.
GreenState responds that
the choice of law inquiry is premature.
If the court conducts the
choice
of
law
determination,
however,
GreenState
argues
Minnesota law applies and that it properly pleads its claims.
that
The
Both parties cite the Courtney and Tingley declarations in
their briefs as part of the factual record. The declarations do
not contradict the complaint, and both parties embrace the
materials and do not dispute their authenticity.
1
6
CASE 0:20-cv-00621-DSD-DTS Doc. 78 Filed 07/19/21 Page 7 of 18
court determines that the choice of law inquiry is appropriate at
this time and that Iowa law applies. 2
Discovery is necessary for a choice of law inquiry when it is
difficult or not possible for the court to evaluate which states’
laws apply.
See P.L. Banks, Inc. v. Organized Fishing, Inc., No.
14-cv-3013,
2015
WL
420288,
at
*6
(D.
Minn.
Feb.
2,
2015);
Cantonis v. Stryker Corp., No. 09-cv-3509, 2010 WL 6239354, at *3
(D. Minn. Nov. 23, 2010), report and recommendation adopted, No.
09-cv-3509, 2011 WL 1084971 (D. Minn. Mar. 21, 2011).
Here, the
court is satisfied that it has sufficient information to make a
choice of law determination because the factual record details
where relevant conduct took place.
See Lapushner v. Admedus Ltd.,
No. 20-cv-572, 2020 WL 5106818, at *3 (D. Minn. Aug. 31, 2020).
Federal courts sitting in diversity apply the forum state’s
conflict of laws rules.
Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Kirkevold, 87
F.R.D. 324, 331 (D. Minn. 1980).
“Minnesota’s choice-of-law rules
involve a multistep analysis.”
Whitney v. Guys, Inc., 700 F.3d
1118, 1123 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing Christian v. Birch, 763 N.W.2d
50, 56 (Minn. App. 2009)).
Under Minnesota law, the first inquiry
is whether an actual conflict of laws exists.
Nodak Mut. Ins. Co.
v. Am. Family Mut. Ins., 604 N.W.2d 91, 93-94 (Minn. 2000).
Next,
the court must determine “whether the law of both states can be
The parties do not dispute that only Minnesota and Iowa
law are relevant for the choice of law analysis.
2
7
CASE 0:20-cv-00621-DSD-DTS Doc. 78 Filed 07/19/21 Page 8 of 18
constitutionally applied.”
Jepson v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wis., 513
N.W.2d 467, 469 (Minn. 1994). If there is an outcome determinative
conflict
and
the
law
of
both
states
can
be
constitutionally
applied, then the court applies Minnesota’s multifactor test,
which uses the Leflar factors, to determine which states’ law
should apply. Whitney, 700 F.3d at 1124 (citing Jepson, 513 N.W.2d
at 470).
A.
Outcome Determinative Conflict
A conflict exists if application of the law of either state
would be outcome determinative.
Nodak, 604 N.W.2d at 94.
There
is an outcome determinative conflict pertaining to the Minnesota
PCSA claim because there is no analogous Iowa statute. 3 The parties
dispute,
however,
whether
there
is
an
outcome
conflict regarding GreenState’s negligence claims.
determinative
At issue is
whether Iowa’s economic loss rule bars GreenState’s negligence
claims.
The court finds that it does, and, therefore, there is an
outcome determinative conflict. 4
“A federal court sitting in diversity interprets state law
and
does
courts.”
not
contravene
clear
directives
from
state
supreme
Dziadek v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 867 F.3d 1003,
1011 (8th Cir. 2017); see also Karas v. Am. Fam. Ins. Co., 33 F.3d
GreenState concedes that there is an outcome determinative
conflict in this respect.
3
GreenState argues that Minnesota law would not bar its
negligence claims, and Hy-Vee raises no argument in opposition.
4
8
CASE 0:20-cv-00621-DSD-DTS Doc. 78 Filed 07/19/21 Page 9 of 18
995, 1000 (8th Cir. 1994) (“As a federal court, our role is to
interpret state law in diversity cases and not to fashion it.”).
In Annett Holdings, Inc. v. Kum & Go, L.C., 801 N.W.2d 499 (Iowa
2011), the Iowa Supreme Court endorsed the economic loss rule.
“[T]he economic loss rule bars recovery in negligence when the
plaintiff has suffered only economic loss.”
Id. at 503 (citing
Neb. Innkeepers, Inc. v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Corp., 345 N.W.2d
124, 126 (Iowa 1984)).
Without any physical or direct harm
occurring to property or persons, plaintiff cannot recover for
purely economic or business loss.
See Neb. Innkeepers, Inc., 345
N.W.2d at 126-29.
GreenState argues that payment card data is akin to “property”
that can be “damaged,” and, consequently, it is not economic loss.
The data breach rendered the payment cards, and its accompanying
data,
useless
and
valueless,
and
GreenState
had
to
mitigate
additional damages, including the replacement and reissuing of
payment
cards. 5
The
court
finds
GreenState’s
argument
unpersuasive.
GreenState argues that, because computer data is considered
property in the criminal context, it should be considered property
in the civil context. See Iowa Code Ann. §§ 702.14, 702.01A(10).
GreenState does not cite any Iowa caselaw, however, where computer
data is considered property in the civil context, and the court
will not expand the criminal definition’s application. See Karas,
33 F.3d at 1000 (“[O]ur role is to interpret state law in diversity
cases and not to fashion it.”).
5
9
CASE 0:20-cv-00621-DSD-DTS Doc. 78 Filed 07/19/21 Page 10 of 18
The Iowa Supreme Court held that the economic loss doctrine
bars negligence claims against a convenience store for fraudulent
and unauthorized payment card use by a third party.
Holdings, Inc., 801 N.W.2d at 506.
plaintiff’s
employees
misused
withdraw money for himself.
Annett
In Annett Holdings, one of
plaintiff’s
Id. at 501.
payment
cards
to
The employee would use
the payment card – which was for the purpose of purchasing fuel
and obtaining cash advances – to print cash advance slips and
presented the slips to the convenience store.
Id.
The employee
falsely claimed he was authorized to pay for other employees’ fuel
purchases, and the convenience store paid him in cash.
Id.
Plaintiff alleged that the convenience store was negligent in
providing cash to the employee.
Id. at 502.
The court held that plaintiff’s negligence claim was barred
by the economic loss rule.
unauthorized
withdrawals
Id. at 504.
of
cash
The court explained that
charged
on
the
card,
and
ultimately charged to plaintiff, were indirect economic losses to
plaintiff.
Id. at 502 (“No one was injured [and] no property was
damaged or destroyed.”).
The Iowa Supreme Court cited favorably
to and described Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. v. BJ’s Wholesale
Club, Inc., 918 N.E.2d 36 (Mass. 2009), a Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court case which applied the economic loss doctrine to a
“similar claim[].” Id. In Cumis, credit unions and their insurers
brought negligence claims against a retailer that “improperly
10
CASE 0:20-cv-00621-DSD-DTS Doc. 78 Filed 07/19/21 Page 11 of 18
stored credit card data in a manner that allowed thieves to access
the data,” resulting in fraudulent credit card use.
Cumis Ins. Society, Inc., 918 N.E.2d at 39-40).
Id. (citing
The Cumis court
barred the credit unions’ negligence claim under the economic loss
doctrine.
40).
Id. (citing Cumis Ins. Society, Inc., 918 N.E.2d at 39-
It rejected the credit unions’ contention that compromised
credits cards were tangibly damaged because the credit unions had
to replace and reissue compromised cards.
Id. (citing Cumis Ins.
Society, Inc., 918 N.E.2d at 46-47).
Here, GreenState’s negligence claim would be barred by Iowa’s
economic
loss
doctrine.
GreenState’s
alleged
injuries
-
cancelling compromised cards, reissuing new cards, reimbursing
members
for
fraudulent
charges,
and
losing
interest
and
transaction fees because of reduced card use – are all indirect
economic losses.
GreenState’s injuries do not constitute property
damage to its members’ payment cards.
Because GreenState alleges
nothing more than economic losses, Iowa law bars its negligence
claims.
GreenState argues that Annett Holdings is distinguishable
from this case.
with
the
In Annett Holdings, plaintiff also had a contract
payment
card
issuer,
in
which
plaintiff
assumed
responsibility for unauthorized or fraudulent use of payment cards
by its employees.
Id.
The payment card issuer also had a contract
with the convenience store.
Id.
11
Consequently, the court found
CASE 0:20-cv-00621-DSD-DTS Doc. 78 Filed 07/19/21 Page 12 of 18
that
the
parties
entered
into
a
“chain
of
contracts”
and
specifically applied the “contractual economic loss rule,” which
is an economic loss theory that tort law should not replace “a
consensual network of contracts.”
Id. at 505.
GreenState argues
that there are no allegations of a similar contract with the
payment card issuer, 6 and, consequently, Annett Holdings and the
economic loss rule are wholly inapplicable.
The court, too, finds
this argument unpersuasive.
Important to the economic loss inquiry is whether plaintiff’s
claim “bears a number of characteristics that bring it within the
scope of the economic loss rule.”
Id. at 504.
As described above,
GreenState seeks to recover remote economic loss.
Furthermore, as
the Annett Holdings court explains, the rule is not limited to
cases where parties are in direct contractual privity.
Id.
The
“stranger economic loss” rule prevents plaintiffs from seeking
purely economic losses from remote third parties.
Id.; see also
Neb. Innkeepers, Inc., 345 N.W.2d at 128-29 (holding that plaintiff
cannot recover purely economic losses against bridge contractor
The parties dispute whether GreenState entered into
contracts with payment card providers. Hy-Vee attaches Visa and
MasterCard Rules to its brief to argue that GreenState has
contracts with payment card issuers. GreenState does not allege
the contents of the payment card rules or contracts. The court
does not consider these rules because they are matters outside the
pleadings and are not necessarily embraced by the pleadings. See
Ashanti v. City of Golden Valley, 666 F.3d 1148, 1150–51 (8th Cir.
2012).
6
12
CASE 0:20-cv-00621-DSD-DTS Doc. 78 Filed 07/19/21 Page 13 of 18
that negligently caused bridge to close);
Anderson Plasterers v.
Meinecke, 543 N.W.2d 612, 613-14 (Iowa 1996) (refusing employer’s
negligence claim to recover economic losses from negligent third
party who injured plaintiff’s employees).
“potentially
limitless
liability”
The rule aims to limit
resulting
from
“economic
reverberations” and “encourages parties to enter into contracts.”
Id.
As
discussed
economic losses.
GreenState.
above,
GreenState
seeks
to
recover
purely
Hy-Vee has no direct contractual privity with
Hy-Vee, a merchant, and GreenState, an issuing bank,
are separated by a multistep payment card transaction process and
intervening parties.
Hy-Vee and GreenState’s connection in this
transaction is too remote, and, thus, their relationship to one
another fits squarely within the stranger economic loss rule.
GreenState’s negligence claims would be barred under Iowa
law, which makes the choice of law inquiry outcome determinative.
B.
Constitutional Application of State Law
A state’s law may be constitutionally applied if that state
has “a significant contact or significant aggregation of contacts,
creating state interests, such that choice of its law is neither
arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair.” Jepson, 513 N.W.2d at 469-70
(quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302, 312–13 (1981)).
“[P]rotection
of
out-of-state
parties’
constitutional
rights
requires an inquiry into their claims’ contacts with Minnesota and
13
CASE 0:20-cv-00621-DSD-DTS Doc. 78 Filed 07/19/21 Page 14 of 18
their individual state laws before concluding Minnesota law may
apply.”
2005).
In re St. Jude Med., Inc., 425 F.3d 1116, 1120 (8th Cir.
“When considering fairness in this context, an important
element is the expectation of the parties.”
Phillips Petroleum
Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 822 (1985).
As
a
previous
preliminary
personal
arguments.
matter,
both
jurisdiction
parties
analysis
as
cite
the
support
court’s
for
their
“Personal jurisdiction and choice of law, however,
present distinct inquiries.”
Superior Edge, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.,
964 F. Supp. 2d 1017, 1033 n.4 (D. Minn. 2013) (rejecting the
argument that because the court has personal jurisdiction over
defendant
in
Minnesota
Minnesota law).
that
it
requires
the
court
to
apply
The court’s determination regarding personal
jurisdiction does not bind it here.
Whether the court could constitutionally apply Minnesota law
is a close call.
On the one hand, the contacts of GreenState’s
claims with Minnesota are not seemingly significant.
GreenState’s
injury – cancelling compromised cards, reissuing new cards, and
reimbursing members – is felt in Iowa.
The actions and omissions
by Hy-Vee giving rise to GreenState’s claims – its data security
decision-making and the actions of the information technology
department
–
all
occurred
in
Iowa.
Both
parties
are
Iowa
residents.
On the other hand, Glover v. Merck & Co., Inc., 345 F.
Supp. 2d 994, 997-98 (D. Minn. 2004), suggests that Hy-Vee doing
14
CASE 0:20-cv-00621-DSD-DTS Doc. 78 Filed 07/19/21 Page 15 of 18
business
and
processing
payment
cards
sufficient for constitutional purposes.
in
Minnesota
may
be
Even if the court found
that it could constitutionally apply Minnesota law, the choice of
law factors weigh in favor of Iowa law.
C.
Minnesota Choice of Law Factors
The court evaluates the following factors to determine which
law to apply: “(1) predictability of result; (2) maintenance of
interstate and international order; (3) simplification of the
judicial
task;
(4)
advancement
of
the
forum’s
governmental
interest; and (5) application of the better rule of law.” Whitney,
700 F.3d at 1124 (quoting Jepson, 513 N.W.2d at 470).
The parties
agree that the third factor is neutral and that the fifth factor
is not relevant.
1.
This
Predictability of Results
factor
addresses
“whether
the
choice
of
law
was
predictable before the time of the transaction or event giving
rise to the cause of action ...”
Nesladek v. Ford Motor Co., 46
F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir. 1995) (applying Minnesota law).
This
factor is usually “not of great importance” in tort cases because
of the “unplanned nature” of accidents.
470.
Jepson, 513 N.W.2d at
Here, however, this factor may still tip in favor of applying
Iowa law.
This case is not an ordinary “accidental” tort case,
like a car accident, but rather a negligence claim focusing on the
decision-making conduct of Hy-Vee and its data security employees.
15
CASE 0:20-cv-00621-DSD-DTS Doc. 78 Filed 07/19/21 Page 16 of 18
All
of
Hy-Vee’s
relevant
information
decision-making are located in Iowa.
security
employees
and
It is predictable that Iowa
law would apply.
2. Maintenance of the Interstate Order
Maintenance of interstate order is satisfied “as long as the
state
whose
contacts
laws
with
litigated.”
and
are
purportedly
interest
in
in
the
conflict
facts
has
and
sufficient
issues
being
Danielson v. Nat’l Supply Co., 670 N.W.2d 1, 8 (Minn.
Ct. App. 2003) (citation omitted).
If “a state has little or no
contact with a case and nearly all of the significant contacts are
with a sister state, the factor suggests that a state should not
apply its own law to the dispute.”
Hughes v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., 250 F.3d 618, 620–21 (8th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations
and citations omitted) (applying Leflar’s factors).
This factor heavily favors Iowa law.
residents.
Both parties are Iowa
All of GreenState’s branches are in Iowa.
GreenState
incurred its financial costs replacing, reissuing, and reimbursing
compromised payment cards in Iowa.
It is not enough that Hy-Vee
has approximately ten percent of its stores in Minnesota.
made
its
information
security
decisions
in
Iowa,
Hy-Vee
and
its
information technology and security employees are all in Iowa.
The actions and omissions by Hy-Vee giving rise to GreenState’s
claims – its data security decision-making and the actions of the
information technology department – are based in Iowa.
16
CASE 0:20-cv-00621-DSD-DTS Doc. 78 Filed 07/19/21 Page 17 of 18
3. Advancement of State Interests
The
court
governmental
evaluates
interest
the
by
advancement
considering
interests of the two states.”
“the
of
the
relative
forum’s
policy
Nesladek, 46 F.3d at 739 (quoting
Lommen v. City of East Grand Forks, 522 N.W.2d 148, 152 (Minn. Ct.
App. 1994)).
Although “a state has at least some interest in
protecting nonresidents from tortious acts committed within the
state,”
that
“interest
is
only
slight
and
application of its law to the litigation.”
621.
does
not
support
Hughes, 250 F.3d at
Moreover, there is not an important state interest furthered
“by ensuring that nonresidents are compensated for injuries that
occur in another state.”
Id. (emphasis omitted).
As discussed
above, GreenState is an Iowa resident whose injury occurred in
Iowa.
Minnesota’s governmental interest in this tort action is
not significantly furthered, and this factor weighs in favor of
Iowa law.
In
sum,
Minnesota’s
application of Iowa law.
choice
of
law
inquiry
favors
the
Accordingly, the court applies Iowa law,
and, as detailed above, GreenState’s PCSA and negligence claims
must be dismissed.
D.
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Claim
GreenState’s
remaining
claim
is
for
declaratory
and
injunctive relief, premised on its dismissed negligence claims.
Because the court dismissed GreenState’s substantive claims, it
17
CASE 0:20-cv-00621-DSD-DTS Doc. 78 Filed 07/19/21 Page 18 of 18
also dismisses GreenState’s claim for declaratory and injunctive
relief.
See Pickrell v. Sorin Grp. USA, Inc., 293 F. Supp. 3d
865, 869 (S.D. Iowa 2018) (citing Schilling v. Rogers, 363 U.S.
666, 677 (1960)) (explaining that the Declaratory Judgment Act is
not a cause of action without an underlying claim); Minn. Indus.
Ventures, L.L.C. v. City of Roseville, No. 05-cv-2488, 2006 WL
763208, at *5 n.4 (D. Minn. Mar. 24, 2006) (citing Great–West Life
& Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 211 n.1 (2002))
(explaining dismissal of substantive claim eliminates request for
injunctive relief because “an injunction is a remedy, not a cause
of action.”).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
The motion to dismiss [ECF No. 64] is granted; and
2.
The action is dismissed with prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: July 19, 2021
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court
18
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?