United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on the individual
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Union Bank's Amended
CFAA Claim. Dkt. #81. Defendants argue that Plaintiff
continues to fail to state a claim for relief under the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) against the
individual Defendants. Id. Plaintiff responds that
it has adequately pled facts to support its amended CFAA
claim. Dkt. #82. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
disagrees with Plaintiff and GRANTS Defendants' motion to
instant matter was filed in this Court on November 22, 2017.
Dkt. #1. Plaintiff MUFG Union Bank, N.A. (“Union
Bank”) alleges that a group of its former employees
resigned en masse after planning for several months
to take trade secrets, documents and confidential information
that they are now utilizing to take business from it and
unfairly compete with it. Dkt. #79 at ¶ ¶ 8-22.
Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant U.S. Bank knew of
the individuals' actions and encouraged them.
Id. at ¶ ¶ 19-22. Based on these
allegations, Union Bank initially asserted six claims for
relief against the Defendants: 1) breach of fiduciary duty of
loyalty (against all Defendants); 2) intentional interference
with business relationships (against all Defendants); 3)
misappropriation of trade secrets under Washington's
UTSA, RCW 19.108.010, et seq. (against all
Defendants); 4) conversion (against all Defendants); 5)
misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade
Secrets Act (“DFSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1831,
et seq. (against all Defendants); and 6) violations
of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18
U.S.C. § 1030, et seq. (against the individual
Defendants). Dkt. #1 at ¶ ¶ 23-56. All Defendants
then moved to dismiss all claims. Dkts. #62 and #63.
2, 2018, this Court granted in part Defendants' motions.
Dkt. #78. Specifically, the Court dismissed with prejudice
Plaintiff's First, Second and Fourth Claims for Relief,
allowed Plaintiff's Third and Fifth Claims for trade
misappropriation under state and federal law to proceed, and
allowed Plaintiff leave to amend its CFAA claim only.
Id. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on May 11,
2018. Dkt. #79. The instant motion followed.
deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, this Court is limited to the
allegations on the face of the Complaint (including documents
attached thereto), matters which are properly judicially
noticeable and other extrinsic documents when “the
plaintiff's claim depends on the contents of a document,
the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss,
and the parties do not dispute the authenticity of the
document, even though the plaintiff does not explicitly
allege the contents of that document in the complaint.”
Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir.
2005). The Court must construe the complaint in the light
most favorable to the Plaintiff and must accept all factual
allegations as true. Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins.
Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court must
also accept as true all reasonable inferences to be drawn
from the material allegations in the Complaint. See Brown
v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 724 F.3d 1235, 1247-48 (9th Cir.
2013); Pareto v. F.D.I.C., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th
Cir. 1998). However, the Court is not required to accept as
true a “legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
Amended CFAA Claim Against Individual Defendants
individual Defendants now move for the dismissal of
Plaintiff's amended CFAA claim against them. The CFAA was
enacted in 1984 to enhance the government's ability to
prosecute computer crimes. LVRC Holdings LLC v.
Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 2009). The Act was
originally designed to target hackers who accessed computers
to steal information or to disrupt or destroy computer
functionality, as well as criminals who possessed the
capacity to “access and control high technology
processes vital to our everyday lives . . . .”
Id. at 1130-31. The CFAA prohibits a number of
different computer crimes, the majority of which involve
accessing computers without authorization or in excess of
authorization, and then taking specified forbidden actions,
ranging from obtaining information to damaging a computer or
computer data. Brekka, 581 F.3d at 1130-31 (citing
18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(1)-(7) (2004).
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following:
Employees knowingly, intentionally, and with the intent to
defraud Union Bank accessed Union Bank's computer systems
without authorization or beyond the scope of any
authorization Employees had in an effort to download and
transfer files containing Union Bank's confidential and
proprietary files, trade secrets, and other confidential
information. Employees transferred confidential and trade
secret information, including confidential and sensitive
customer information, which they misappropriated from Union
Bank to dropbox.com and salesforce.com accounts under the
control of Employees. Specifically, Employees exceeded any
authorization they had to access customer information
contained in Union Bank's computer systems by
downloading, uploading, or otherwise taking and storing for
later use Union Bank's customers' information,
including but not limited to Union Bank's customers'
email addresses. Employees were authorized to access such
information only while employed by ...