Goodman v. Goodman
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-10902
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Goodman v. Goodman, Judge Woods granted in part and denied in part Gila Goodman’s motion to dismiss Michael P. Goodman’s claims.
Michael P. Goodman’s federal and state-law claims were affected. Several claims were dismissed with prejudice, the claim concerning the June 5, 2020 recording of his phone calls was not dismissed, and the state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice. Gila Goodman’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.
What happened
In Goodman v. Goodman, Michael P. Goodman objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendation about Gila Goodman’s motion to dismiss. He challenged the recommendation’s conclusions about his computer-fraud and email-interception claims and its refusal to let him revise the complaint.
The court independently reviewed the parts challenged by the objections and reviewed the remaining parts for clear error. It agreed with the magistrate judge’s analysis and adopted the recommendation in full.
Judge Woods ruled that the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The court dismissed with prejudice the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim, the Stored Communications Act claim, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act claim concerning the password-protected computer and emails; it did not dismiss the claim concerning the June 5, 2020 recording of phone calls; and it dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Goodman v. Goodman · No. 1:21-cv-10902
- Gregory Woods
- Feb. 12, 2023
Background
The order concerns Plaintiff Michael P. Goodman’s objections to a report and recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger. The report recommended granting in part and denying in part Defendant Gila Goodman’s motion to dismiss the complaint or, alternatively, to stay the proceedings.
Goodman objected to three conclusions: that he had not adequately pleaded losses required for a claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; that he had not plausibly alleged the required contemporaneous interception of email for a claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; and that he should not be allowed to re-plead the complaint to better specify the alleged losses.
Review of the Recommendation
The court reviewed de novo—that is, independently—the portions of the recommendation challenged by Goodman’s specific objections. It reviewed the unchallenged portions for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court found no clear error and agreed with Judge Lehrburger’s analysis and conclusions in full.
Ruling
The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety and ruled that Gila Goodman’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part:
- Goodman’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim was dismissed with prejudice.
- His Stored Communications Act claim was dismissed with prejudice.
- His Electronic Communications Privacy Act claim concerning his password-protected HP Pavilion All-in-One Computer and emails was dismissed with prejudice.
- His claim concerning the June 5, 2020 recording of his phone calls was not dismissed.
- His state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice.
The order also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion at Docket No. 26. The opinion’s final list refers once to the “Electronic Communications Protection Act” and “EPCA,” but its earlier text identifies the statute as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and “ECPA.”
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.