This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Business Law
Unfair Competition
Negligence

In Re: California Pizza Kitchen Data Breach Litigation

Published: Dec. 23, 2022 | Result Date: Jun. 30, 2022 | Filing Date: Nov. 23, 2021 |

Case number: 8:21-cv-01928-DOC-KES Settlement –  Reimbursement

Judge

David O. Carter

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Mason Barney
(Siri & Glimstad LLP)

Sonal Jain
(Siri & Glimstad LLP)


Defendant

Jon P. Kardassakis
(Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP)


Facts

Kansas Gilleo, Sydney Rusen, Esteban Morales, Douglas Wallace, Brett Rigas, and Evencio Diaz brought a class action against California Pizza Kitchen, Inc. (CPK), pertaining to the cyberattack on certain systems within CPK's computing environment, during which unauthorized third parties were able to access certain files containing the personal information of current and former employees. The California subclass included all persons residing in California who were sent notice of the data security incident announced by CPK on or about November 15, 2021.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs asserted that the computer files affected by the data security incident contained names, social security numbers, and other personally identifiable information of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs contended that defendant was responsible for the increased risk of identity theft stemming from the data security incident and asserted claims for negligence; negligence per se; declaratory judgment; violation of the New York General Business Law; violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; violation of California's Consumer Records Act; violation of California's Consumer Privacy Act; breach of implied contract; breach of confidence; bailment; and violation of state data breach statutes.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions.

Settlement Discussions

The parties engaged in formal mediation with JAMS mediator Bruce A. Friedman and ultimately agreed to the terms of a proposed settlement.

Result

The parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the defendant admitted no wrongdoing or liability but agreed to reimburse ordinary out-of-pocket expenses and compensate class members for lost time resulting from the data security incident up to $1,000; to reimburse class members who suffered actual identity theft for up to $5,000 of extraordinary expenses if they meet certain conditions; and to pay each California class member $100. The settlement also provides that the defendant will pay for 24 months of credit monitoring for class members who enroll.


#139957

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390