Ballentine v. Yahoo Inc.

Background

Quintin Jerome Ballentine, representing himself, sued Yahoo Inc. and Jim Lanzone. He alleged that, from January 1, 2023, through May 1, 2024, sensitive information stored in his online account—including photographs of his Social Security card, birth certificate, state identification, and other identifying data—was stolen. He alleged that unknown people used information obtained from the account to steal his identity, locate his residence, and harass and intimidate him. He sought $133,000 in damages.

The complaint invoked 26 U.S.C. § 7213 and 18 U.S.C. § 1028, which are federal criminal statutes. The opinion also addressed possible claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a federal law that can provide a civil claim for intentional interception of electronic communications.

Federal Criminal Statutes and Electronic Communications Privacy Act

Because Ballentine was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen his complaint and dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally valid claim, or sought relief from an immune defendant. The court held that Ballentine could not initiate the arrest or prosecution of the defendants because decisions to prosecute belong to prosecutors. The court also stated that §§ 7213 and 1028 are criminal statutes and do not provide a private civil right to sue.

The court further held that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act did not apply to the allegations. Ballentine alleged that the defendants failed to protect his information from unknown people who accessed it; he did not allege facts showing that the defendants personally intercepted his information. The court therefore dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim.

Possible State Negligence Claim

The court interpreted Ballentine's allegations as possibly asserting negligence under state law based on the alleged failure to protect information stored on Yahoo's platform. A negligence claim requires a duty, a breach of that duty, and resulting injury.

The court also considered whether it could hear such a state-law claim through diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires the parties to be citizens of different states and requires an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Ballentine alleged that he and the defendants were domiciled in New York, which would suggest that the parties were not diverse. The court nevertheless allowed that Yahoo might instead be a citizen of Delaware and California, and that Ballentine might be able to remove Lanzone as a dispensable party if Lanzone was domiciled in New York.

The court found the negligence allegations insufficient because Ballentine did not explain where the information was stored on the Yahoo platform, describe the nature of the alleged breach, or allege facts showing that the defendants knew of a breach and failed to notify him. The court also stated that an amended complaint might provide facts supporting diversity jurisdiction and a valid negligence claim.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), with 30 days' leave to replead. This allowed Ballentine to file an amended complaint; the opinion did not state that the dismissal was with prejudice or without prejudice. If he did not amend within the allowed time, the court said the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Ballentine permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The court directed the Clerk to keep the matter open on the docket until a civil judgment was entered.