Smith v. Sequoia Benefits and Insurance Services LLC
- Susan Illston
- 3:24-cv-01363
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Justice Smith v. Sequoia Benefits, Judge Illston dismissed the case with prejudice and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith.
Justice Smith’s federal case was dismissed with prejudice, and the court certified that her appeal was not taken in good faith. The order states that claims in an earlier related data-breach proceeding were not affected.
What happened
In Justice Smith v. Sequoia Benefits and Insurance Services LLC, the court had dismissed Justice Smith’s claims under a civil-rights statute and the Fair Credit Reporting Act without allowing amendment of those claims. The court had allowed her to file an amended complaint raising other claims.
Justice Smith instead filed a notice of appeal after the court denied reconsideration. The court treated that notice as her decision to proceed only on her original complaint and dismissed the case with prejudice. The order states that the dismissal did not affect claims being litigated in an earlier related data-breach proceeding.
Judge Susan Illston also certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith because the court found that Justice Smith could not state the civil-rights or credit-reporting claims against the defendants arising from the hack of Sequoia’s cloud system.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Sequoia Benefits and Insurance Services LLC · No. 3:24-cv-01363
- Susan Illston
- Apr. 18, 2024
Background
The court had granted Justice Smith permission to proceed without paying the filing fee because of her inability to pay. In an earlier order, the court dismissed her claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil-rights statute that allows claims for certain violations committed under state authority, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a federal law governing consumer-reporting information. The court dismissed those claims without leave to amend, meaning it did not permit her to revise them, but allowed her to file an amended complaint asserting other claims by April 19, 2024.
Justice Smith moved for reconsideration, but the court denied that motion. The court again explained why it believed she could not state claims under § 1983 or the Fair Credit Reporting Act. It also noted that, if she was a member of the relevant class, she appeared to have other claims that could be brought in an earlier related data-breach proceeding.
Current Order
On April 16, 2024, Justice Smith filed a notice of appeal from the order denying reconsideration. Relying on Ninth Circuit authority, the court construed the notice of appeal as a notification that she intended to stand on her original complaint rather than file an amended complaint.
The court then dismissed the case with prejudice. The order states that this dismissal did not affect claims currently being litigated in the earlier related data-breach proceeding.
Appeal Certification
Because Justice Smith was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court was required to decide whether the appeal was taken in good faith. The court defined good faith in this context as having an arguable basis in law or fact. Based on its earlier orders, the court found that Justice Smith could not state § 1983 or Fair Credit Reporting Act claims against the defendants arising from the hack of Sequoia’s cloud system. It therefore certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case with prejudice and certified that the appeal was not taken in good faith.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.