Allen v. Vertafore, Inc.

12 Citing cases

  1. In re GEICO Customer Data Breach Litig.

    No. 21-CV-2210-KAM-SJB (E.D.N.Y. Jul. 21, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    (“[T]he facts alleged in the Complaint describe Vertafore as having stored the data on servers under Vertafore's control, meaning the data was never actually knowingly disclosed to anyone outside of Vertafore.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 3144469, at *1 (July 23, 2021), aff'd, 28 F.4th 613, 615 (5th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S.Ct. 109 (2022).

  2. Cantinieri v. Verisk Analytics, Inc.

    2:21-cv-6911 (NJC) (JMW) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2024)

    Cantinieri also relies on Allen v. Vertafore, Inc., in which the district court found that an alleged violation of the DPPA was sufficient to establish an injury for Article III standing. No. 20-cv-4139, 2021 WL 3148870 (S.D. Tex. June 14, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 3144469 (S.D. Tex. July 23, 2021), aff'd, 28 F.4th 613 (5th Cir. 2022). Allen was decided before TransUnion, in which the Supreme Court clarified that a statutory violation alone does not automatically confer standing.

  3. Gardner-Douglas v. Tunsel

    Civil Action 4:23-CV-04207 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2024)

    The court's review is limited to the complaint; any documents attached to the complaint; any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint; and matters subject to judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201. Allen v. Vertafore, Inc., 28 F.4th 613, 616 (5th Cir. 2022); George v. SI Group, Inc., 36 F.4th 611, 619 (5th Cir. 2022); see, e.g., Robles v. Ciarletta, 797 Fed.Appx. 821, 831 (5th Cir. 2019) (district court properly considered body camera video and police report when ruling on motion to dismiss where both pieces of evidence were referenced in complaint and were central to plaintiff's claims).

  4. English v. United States

    Civil Action 4:24-CV-00283 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2024)

    The court's review is limited to the complaint; any documents attached to the complaint; any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint; and matters subject to judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201. Allen v. Vertafore, Inc., 28 F.4th 613, 616 (5th Cir. 2022); George v. SI Group, Inc., 36 F.4th 611, 619 (5th Cir. 2022).

  5. Desir v. Walmart, Inc.

    Civil Action 4:23-CV-00700 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2024)

    ” Arnold v. Williams, 979 F.3d 262, 266 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “[t]he court's review is limited to the complaint, any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.” Allen v. Vertafore, Inc., 28 F.4th 613, 616 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). The Court applies a more lenient standard when analyzing the complaints of pro se plaintiffs, but they “must still plead factual allegations that raise the right to relief beyond the speculative level.”

  6. Reed v. Nat'l Aeronautics & Space Admin.

    Civil Action 4:23-cv-110-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2024)

    At the motion to dismiss stage, “[t]he court's review is limited to the complaint, any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.” Allen v. Vertafore, Inc., 28 F.4th 613, 616 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010)). III. ANALYSIS

  7. Davis v. Harris Cnty. Jail

    Civil Action 4:23-CV-00006 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2023)

    Allen v. Vertafore, Inc., 28 F.4th 613, 616 (5th Cir. 2022); George v. SI Group, Inc., 36 F.4th 611, 619 (5th Cir. 2022).

  8. Stone v. Finra

    694 F. Supp. 3d 774 (E.D. Tex. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    At the motion to dismiss stage, "[t]he court's review is limited to the complaint, any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint." Allen v. Vertafore, Inc., 28 F.4th 613, 616 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 143 S. Ct. 109, 214 L.Ed.2d 26 (2022) (quoting Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010)).

  9. In re Geico Customer Data Breach Litig.

    691 F. Supp. 3d 624 (E.D.N.Y. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    GEICO also objects to the R&R's characterization of Allen v. Vertafore, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-04139, 2021 WL 3148870, at *4 (S.D. Tex. June 14, 2021), arguing that the R&R "inaccurately states that the underlying Memorandum and Recommendation in Allen held that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a DPPA claim because the allegations there 'describe Vertafore as having stored the data on servers under Vertafore's control, meaning the data was never actually knowingly disclosed to anyone outside of Vertafore.' " (Def. Obj. at 9); see also Allen, 2021 WL 3148870, report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:20-cv-04139, 2021 WL 3144469 (S.D. Tex. July 23, 2021), aff'd, 28 F.4th 613 (5th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 143 S. Ct. 109, 214 L. Ed. 2d 26 (2022). On de novo review, the Court finds that GEICO's arguments are unavailing, as GEICO's reliance on Enslin and Allen, neither of which is controlling, is misplaced and misconstrues Plaintiffs' well-pleaded allegations.

  10. Stone v. Cook

    Civil 4:22-cv-789-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2023)

    At the motion to dismiss stage, “[t]he court's review is limited to the complaint, any documents attached to the complaint, and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.” Allen v. Vertafore, Inc., 28 F.4th 613, 616 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 143 S.Ct. 109 (2022) (quoting Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2010)).