Tiamson v. Equifax, Inc
- Lucy Koh
- 5:19-cv-08430
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 12
In Tiamson v. Equifax, Judge Koh dismissed both plaintiffs’ complaints with prejudice because silence did not create a contract and jurisdiction was lacking.
Carlton Salvatierra Tiamson and Thien Huong Dao Nguyen’s claims against Equifax, Inc.; Equifax prevailed on its motions to dismiss.
What happened
Tiamson v. Equifax, Inc. involved two similar complaints about Equifax’s 2017 data breach. Carlton Salvatierra Tiamson and Thien Huong Dao Nguyen, both representing themselves, sent Equifax letters demanding proof about the breach and claimed that Equifax’s failure to respond created a contract and made Equifax liable.
The court ruled that, under California law, silence generally does not show agreement to a contract, and the plaintiffs did not allege any duty requiring Equifax to respond. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs had not established that the court had authority over Equifax in these cases.
Judge Koh granted Equifax’s motions to dismiss both complaints with prejudice. The court found that changing the complaints would not fix the problems because the plaintiffs’ contract theory depended entirely on Equifax’s silence.
The detailed version
- Tiamson v. Equifax, Inc · No. 5:19-cv-08430
- Lucy Koh
- July 14, 2020
Background
Carlton Salvatierra Tiamson and Thien Huong Dao Nguyen filed separate complaints against Equifax, Inc. concerning Equifax’s September 2017 data breach. The court consolidated the cases because the complaints were substantively identical. Both plaintiffs proceeded without lawyers.
Each plaintiff sent Equifax a certified letter demanding “proofs of claim” concerning the data breach and related issues. Each letter stated that Equifax’s failure to respond within ten days would amount to agreement to the plaintiffs’ terms. After Equifax did not respond, each plaintiff sent additional notices asserting that Equifax was in default under a contract. Tiamson claimed $10,000,000 in damages, and Nguyen claimed $75,000,000.
Motions and Legal Standards
Equifax moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaints failed to state a legally valid claim. Equifax also moved under Rule 12(b)(2), arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction, meaning authority over Equifax in these cases.
Failure to State a Claim
The court found that both plaintiffs’ claims depended entirely on the theory that Equifax’s silence in response to their letters created a contract. Applying California law, the court explained that contract formation requires mutual consent, generally shown through a communicated offer and acceptance. Silence or inaction ordinarily is not acceptance, especially when the responding party had no duty to act.
The court found that neither plaintiff alleged, and the court did not find, any duty requiring Equifax to respond to the letters. Therefore, Equifax’s failure to respond could not create a contract as a matter of law. The court concluded that both complaints failed to state any claim for relief. It also found that amendment would be futile because the plaintiffs’ only theory of liability depended on contract formation through silence.
Personal Jurisdiction
As an alternative ground, the court agreed that the plaintiffs had not established personal jurisdiction over Equifax under either general or specific jurisdiction. The court relied on a prior nearly identical case in the Northern District of California, in which the court found no sufficient connection between Equifax, California, and the alleged data breach or failure to respond to the plaintiff’s notice. The court concluded that the same reasoning applied here and that this alternative ground also made amendment futile.
Disposition
The court granted Equifax’s motions to dismiss both plaintiffs’ complaints with prejudice. The court entered this ruling on July 14, 2020.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.