This case was last updated from PACER on 10/29/2021 at 05:12:00 (UTC).

Jonathan Bowdle v. King's Seafood Company, LLC

Case Summary

On October 27, 2021, Jonathan Bowdle (“Plaintiff”), in his individual capacity and on behalf of all others similarly situated, represented by Rachele R. Byrd of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP, filed a personal injury lawsuit against King’s Seafood Company, LLC (“Defendant”), seeking equitable relief and injunctive reliefs along with damages and prejudgement interest among other reliefs for the alleged negligence of the Defendants that breached the PII of the Plaintiff and the class. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the Central District of California. 

 

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that “Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Personally Identifiable Information (“PII”) of its customers and employees, without limitation, names, driver’s license information, payment card information, medical cards, telephone numbers, and partially redacted Social Security numbers” and “Plaintiff also alleges Defendant failed to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff and similarly situated current and former employees and customers (“Class Members”) that their PII had been lost and precisely what type of information was unencrypted and is now in the possession of unknown third parties.”

 

The Plaintiff further alleged that “By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion.” and “This PII was compromised due to Defendant’s negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the failure to protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members.”

 

Plaintiff also alleged that “In addition to Defendant’s failure to prevent the Data Breach, after discovering the breach, Defendant waited a month to report it to the states’ Attorneys General and affected individuals. Defendant has not informed Plaintiff or Class Members what the specific vulnerabilities and root causes of the breach are” and “Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose PII was compromised as a result of Defendant’s failure to: (i) adequately protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant’s inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents. Defendant’s conduct amounts to negligence and violates federal and state statutes.”

 

There are seven claims for relief laid down by Plaintiff. The first claim is for alleged negligence. The second claim is for alleged breach of implied contract. The third claim is for alleged invasion of privacy. The fourth claim is for alleged breach of confidence. The fifth claim is for alleged unjust enrichment. The sixth claim is for alleged violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 598.0915 & 598.0923. The seventh claim is for alleged violation of the Nevada Data Breach Law, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 603A.010, et seq.

 

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff has requested the court to certify this action as a class action and appoint Plaintiff as the representative of the class. Further, Plaintiff requested the Court for equitable relief and injunctive reliefs along with an award of damages, including actual, statutory, nominal, and consequential damages, an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, litigation expenses, prejudgement interest, and any other relief the Court deems just.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.



Case Details Parties

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    8:21-CV-01784

  • Filing Date:

    10/27/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Jonathan Bowdle

Defendant

King's Seafood Company, LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Rachele R Byrd

Attorney at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP

750 B Street Suite 1820

San Diego, CA 92101

Docket Entries

Please Update this case to get latest docket information.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where KING'S SEAFOOD COMPANY LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Rachele R Byrd