David Angel Sifuentes III v. Adobe Inc.

Background

This is the third federal lawsuit filed by self-represented plaintiff David Angel Sifuentes III against Adobe Inc. arising from a 2013 data breach. The two prior lawsuits were filed in the Western District of Michigan in 2023 and were both dismissed. Sifuentes acknowledged the prior cases in his complaint. Along with the complaint, Sifuentes filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (without paying court filing fees) and a motion for appointment of counsel.

Claims Asserted

Sifuentes asserted seven counts: - Count I: Negligence - Count II: Breach of contract - Count III: Violation of the California Customer Records Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.82 - Count IV: Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) - Counts V and VI: Intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress - Count VII: Declaratory and injunctive relief

Screening Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

Because Sifuentes was proceeding in forma pauperis, the court was required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to screen the complaint and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek relief against an immune defendant.

Dismissal of Counts I, V, and VI — Statute of Limitations

California imposes a two-year statute of limitations on claims for negligence and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The complaint was filed on June 9, 2026, so any claims that accrued before June 9, 2024 are time-barred.

The court found that these claims accrued no later than February 6, 2023 — the date Sifuentes filed his first Western District of Michigan lawsuit asserting the same claims — and possibly as early as November 2022, when he alleged he first learned he was a victim of the data breach. The court took judicial notice of the filings in the prior cases to establish these dates.

Equitable Tolling Rejected

Sifuentes invoked equitable tolling — a doctrine that can pause or extend a filing deadline when a plaintiff reasonably pursues one remedy among several — to argue his claims were still timely. The court rejected this argument on two grounds.

First, even if tolling applied during the pendency of his first appeal, he voluntarily dismissed that appeal on May 30, 2024. More than two years elapsed between May 30, 2024 and the June 9, 2026 filing date, so the claims remained untimely even with the benefit of tolling.

Second, Sifuentes was not entitled to equitable tolling because his conduct was not objectively reasonable. California courts apply equitable tolling only when a plaintiff's conduct is objectively reasonable and subjectively in good faith. Here, Sifuentes filed two substantially identical federal actions in Michigan — both dismissed — and then voluntarily abandoned his appeals. He could have pursued his state-law claims in California state court after the Michigan dismissals, which were without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, but instead waited and filed a third federal action. The court found that applying equitable tolling in these circumstances would improperly enable serial federal litigation.

No Leave to Amend for Counts I, V, and VI

The court dismissed Counts I, V, and VI with prejudice and without leave to amend, finding that amendment would be futile because the statute of limitations bar is apparent from the face of the complaint and the prior litigation history, and no facts could render the claims timely.

Dismissal of Remaining Claims — Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Sifuentes argued the court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which requires complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000.

The court found it was a legal certainty that the $75,000 threshold was not met. Sifuentes premised his amount-in-controversy allegation on compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages including damages for emotional distress. However, because the negligence and emotional distress claims (the only claims that could support punitive damages) were time-barred and dismissed, punitive damages could not be considered. The court explained: - Punitive damages are not available for breach of contract absent an independent tort. - Punitive damages are not available under the UCL. - The California Customer Records Act caps civil penalties at $3,000.

The only remaining damages alleged were $857.50 in personal time Sifuentes spent managing the data breach fallout. The court found that amount, combined with all other potential damages and the maximum $3,000 Customer Records Act penalty, fell well below $75,000.

The court also noted in a footnote that no federal question jurisdiction existed. Sifuentes's federal claims had been dismissed with prejudice in the Michigan litigation, and his voluntary dismissal of that appeal rendered the judgment final for claim preclusion purposes. His declaratory judgment claim was similarly unavailable in the absence of independent jurisdiction.

Accordingly, Counts II, III, IV, and VII were dismissed without prejudice but without leave to amend in federal court, preserving the possibility of refiling in California state court.

Motion to Appoint Counsel — Denied

Sifuentes moved for appointment of counsel. The court noted there is generally no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases, though a court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) to request that an attorney represent an indigent party in exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances require evaluating both the likelihood of success on the merits and the plaintiff's ability to articulate claims given the complexity of the issues.

The court denied the motion because: (1) Sifuentes had no viable claims over which the court had jurisdiction; (2) the legal issues were not complex; and (3) Sifuentes was capable of articulating his claims — his failure resulted from the fundamental legal deficiencies of those claims, not from lack of counsel. The court also noted that in other data breach litigation, Sifuentes had obtained relief and defeated defense motions without the assistance of counsel.

Disposition

- Application to proceed in forma pauperis: GRANTED - Counts I, V, and VI (negligence; intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress): DISMISSED with prejudice - Counts II, III, IV, and VII (breach of contract; California Customer Records Act; UCL; declaratory and injunctive relief): DISMISSED without prejudice, without leave to amend in federal court - Motion to appoint counsel: DENIED