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.
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).
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).
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
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)). C. Particularity Requirement
” 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.”
When deciding a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court must "accept all well-pleaded facts as true and view those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Allen v. Vertafore, Inc., 28 F.4th 613, 616 (5th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). But a court does not accept as true any "conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions."
The district court may take into account the complaint; any documents attached to the complaint; any documents attached to a 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. See 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).
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)).
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.