Radford v. Charter Communications Holdings, LLC

Background

Amy Sue Radford alleged that she and her children participate in Minnesota’s Safe at Home Program, which allows her to maintain a confidential address. She alleged that Charter Communications Holdings, LLC, doing business as Spectrum, provided internet and phone services to her from 2017 until January 2021. Beginning in March 2021, she received unsolicited mail at her confidential address addressed to “Amy Radford or current resident.”

Radford alleged that she sent Charter a certified cease-and-desist letter, which Charter received on July 29, 2021, but that she continued receiving mail from Charter at her confidential residential address. She said this caused anxiety and emotional distress and led her to believe that her address confidentiality and privacy had been compromised. She alleged that she is a survivor of domestic violence, feared for her and her family’s safety, and believed she would need to relocate her family. She later sent a second cease-and-desist letter on December 9, 2022.

Claims and screening standard

Radford requested an order requiring Charter to remove her personal identifying information, including her address, from its database and from any third-party database to which Charter had sold or provided the information. She also requested punitive damages under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, and for Charter’s alleged intrusion on her “seclusion, solitude, and safety.”

The court reviewed the complaint under the screening provision for people who seek to proceed without paying filing fees, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court accepted factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in Radford’s favor, but required the complaint to state a plausible claim for relief. The court also noted that complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally but still must allege enough facts to support the claims.

Federal Privacy Act claim

The court held that the Privacy Act’s restriction on disclosure of records applies to agencies of the United States Government. It does not create a private cause of action against private entities. Because Charter was the only defendant and Radford did not allege that Charter was a federal government agency, the court concluded that her Privacy Act claim failed as a matter of law.

State-law privacy claim and jurisdiction

Although Radford did not expressly identify another cause of action, the court liberally construed her references to intrusion on “seclusion, solitude, and safety” as an invasion-of-privacy claim under state law, including the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

The court concluded that it lacked original jurisdiction over those state-law claims. Federal-question jurisdiction did not apply because the claims were based on state law. Diversity jurisdiction also was not established because Radford did not allege diversity of citizenship. The court further concluded that exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims was improper after all federal claims were dismissed before trial.

Disposition

The court dismissed the entire action without prejudice. It dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and dismissed the state-law claims for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court denied Radford’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot.