Mandry Has 7 Days to Show Cause Why Spyware Complaint Shouldn’t Be Remanded
U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton for Central California in Los Angeles ordered Mandry Technology Solutions to show cause by Friday why plaintiff Dana Hughes’ privacy complaint against the company shouldn’t be remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court because its…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
diversity jurisdiction’s $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement isn’t satisfied, said the judge’s Nov. 16 order (docket 2:23-cv-09502). Hughes alleges that Mandry, a supplier of IT, cybersecurity and cloud strategy enterprise services, “secretly installed” spyware on its website from third party Lead Forensics (see 2311120003). She alleges the spyware allows Mandry to “de-anonymize every anonymous visitor to the site” so that it knows each visitor's name, face, location, email and browsing history. Mandry attempts to meet its $75,000 burden “in large part by pointing to the cost of complying with an injunction,” should the court impose one in Hughes’ favor, said the judge’s order. But Mandry fails to allege any facts that allow the court “to determine whether the cost of complying with an injunction would actually push the amount in controversy over $75,000,” it said. Mandry also provides no information about the amount owed to Hughes in damages, “thereby making it impossible to know whether those damages, in combination with the costs of injunction compliance, easily surpass $75,000, as Mandry claims, it said.