Rollins v. City of Albert Lea

• Decision Date: 17 December 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. 14–cv–299 SRN/HB.
• Citation: 79 F.Supp.3d 946
• Parties: Summer Michelle ROLLINS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ALBERT LEA; Anoka County; City of Anoka; City of Blaine; City of Breezy Point ; City of Brooklyn Park; City of Champlin; City of Coon Rapids ; Dakota County; City of Elk River; Hennepin County; City of Howard Lake; City of Maplewood; City of Minnetonka; City of Mora ; City of North St. Paul ; City of Ramsey; Ramsey County; City of Rogers; City of Roseville; Sherburne County; City of St. Paul; Washington County; Michael Campion, in his individual capacity as the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety ; Ramona Dohman, in her individual capacity as the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety ; John and Jane Does (1–600) acting in their individual capacity as supervisors, officers, deputies, staff, investigators, employees or agents of the other governmental agencies; Department of Public Safety Does (1–30) acting in their individual capacity as officers, supervisors, staff, employees, independent contractors or agents of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; and Entity Does (1–50) including cities, counties, municipalities, and other entities sited in Minnesota, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

79 F.Supp.3d 946

Summer Michelle ROLLINS, Plaintiff

v.CITY OF ALBERT LEA; Anoka County; City of Anoka; City of Blaine; City of Breezy Point ; City of Brooklyn Park; City of Champlin; City of Coon Rapids ; Dakota County; City of Elk River; Hennepin County; City of Howard Lake; City of Maplewood; City of Minnetonka; City of Mora ; City of North St. Paul ; City of Ramsey; Ramsey County; City of Rogers; City of Roseville; Sherburne County; City of St. Paul; Washington County; Michael Campion, in his individual capacity as the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety ; Ramona Dohman, in her individual capacity as the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety ; John and Jane Does (1–600) acting in their individual capacity as supervisors, officers, deputies, staff, investigators, employees or agents of the other governmental agencies; Department of Public Safety Does (1–30) acting in their individual capacity as officers, supervisors, staff, employees, independent contractors or agents of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; and Entity Does (1–50) including cities, counties, municipalities, and other entities sited in Minnesota, Defendants.

Case No. 14–cv–299 SRN/HB.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

Signed Dec. 17, 2014.

Lorenz F. Fett, Jr., Sonia L. Miller–Van Oort, Jonathan A. Strauss, Sapientia Law Group PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff.

Jon K. Iverson, Stephanie A. Angolkar, Susan M. Tindal, Bloomington, MN, for Defendants City of Albert Lea, City of Anoka, City of Blaine, City of Breezy Point, City of Brooklyn Park, City of Champlin, City of Coon Rapids, City of Elk River, City of Howard Lake, City of Maplewood, City of Minnetonka, City of Mora, City of North St. Paul, City of Ramsey, City of Rogers, and City of Roseville.

Bryan D. Frantz, Anoka County Attorney's Office, Anoka, MN, for Defendant Anoka County.

Amelia N. Jadoo and Helen R. Brosnahan, Dakota County Attorney's Office, Hastings, MN, for Defendant Dakota County.

Toni A. Beitz, Beth A. Stack, and Daniel D. Kaczor, Hennepin County Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant Hennepin County.

Kimberly R. Parker and Robert B. Roche, Ramsey County Attorney's Office, St. Paul, MN, for Defendant Ramsey County.

Erin E. Benson, Margaret A. Skelton, Timothy A. Sullivan, Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney PA, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendants Sherburne County and Washington Counties.

Kara M. Kisch, Office of the St. Paul Attorney, St. Paul, MN, for Defendant City of St. Paul.

Oliver J. Larson, Minnesota Attorney General's Office, St. Paul, MN, for Defendants Michael Campion and Ramona Dohman.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on the following motions: (1) Defendant Hennepin County's Motion to Dismiss and/or to Sever [Doc. No. 19]; (2) Defendants City of Albert Lea, City of Anoka, City of Blaine, City of Breezy Point, City of Brooklyn Part, City of Champlin, City of Coon Rapids, City of Elk River, City of Howard Lake, City of Maplewood, City of Minnetonka, City of Mora, City of North St. Paul, City of Ramsey, City of Rogers, and City of Roseville's Motion to Dismiss and/or Sever [Doc. No. 25]; (3) Defendant Ramsey County's Motion to Dismiss or for Severance [Doc. No. 31]; (4) Defendant City of St. Paul's Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively to Sever [Doc. No. 36]; Defendant Dakota County's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 46]; (5) Defendant Anoka County's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 60]; (6) Defendants Sherburne and Washington Counties' Motion to Dismiss and/or to Sever [Doc. No. 73]; and (7) Defendants Commissioner Ramona Dohman and Commissioner Michael Campion's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 79]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies in part and grants in part these motions.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Summer Michelle Rollins (“Plaintiff” or “Rollins”) filed this action on January 31, 2014 against the municipal, county, and individual Defendants listed above. (See Compl. [Doc. No. 1].) In Count I of her Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claim under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2721 et seq., against all Defendants. (Id. ¶¶ 311–33.) In Count II, Plaintiff brings a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all individual Defendants, including Jane and John Does. (Id. ¶¶ 334–51.) In Count III, Plaintiff states an additional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all entity Defendants and supervisor Defendants, including John and Jane Entity Does. (Id. ¶¶ 352–74.) In Count Plaintiff asserts a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the Commissioner Defendants and the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) Does. (Id. ¶¶ 375–92.) Finally, in Count V, Plaintiff brings a claim for common law invasion of privacy against all Defendants. (Id. ¶¶ 393–98.)

Plaintiff's claims are centered on allegations that law enforcement personnel viewed her private driver's license information in the Minnesota Department of Vehicle Services (“DVS”) driver's license database and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (“BCA”) database without a legitimate purpose. (See id. ¶¶ 1, 6, 56–291.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that law enforcement personnel may have accessed her personal information because Rollins has a tenuous relationship with family members who work or worked for the DPS and various police forces. (Id. ¶¶ 47–52.) Plaintiff's mother works for the DPS. (Id. ¶ 47.) Rollins and her mother have allegedly had a “tenuous relationship since ... [Rollins' mother] kicked Rollins out of the house at age 15.” (Id. ¶ 49.) Plaintiff's uncle, Ken Rollins, was a police office in Elk River and Mora, and is currently an officer in Howard Lake. (Id. ¶ 48.) Rollins' “other family members” have also served, or continue to serve, as law enforcement officers within the state of Minnesota. (Id. ) Plaintiff alleges that her mother and uncle “dislike” Plaintiff because they disapproved of Plaintiff's divorce. (Id. ¶ 50.) Although Plaintiff does not communicate with either her mother or her uncle (id. ¶ 54), Rollins believes that they, and other family members, as well as those government employees who associate with these family members, “have been obtaining, using, or disclosing [Rollins'] information for ... [illegitimate purposes]” (id. ¶ 55).

In 2013, Plaintiff contacted Kim Jacobson at the DPS and requested an audit of the number of times her name was run on the DVS and BCS databases. (Id. ¶¶ 249–53.) On August 7, 2013, Rollins alleges that she learned from the DPS that officers from various departments and agencies accessed her driver's license information 574 times since 2003. (Id. ¶¶ 251–53; see Ex. A; Ex. B [Doc. No. 1–1].) The chart below itemizes the number of lookups allegedly made by each Defendant for a purpose not permitted under the DPPA:

Entity Number of times accessed

Hennepin County	9 (Compl. ¶ 109 [Doc. No. 1].)
	City of Albert Lea	1 (id. ¶ 69.)
	City of Anoka	3 (id. ¶ 77.)
	City of Blaine	1(id. ¶ 81.)
	City of Breezy Point	57 (id. ¶ 85.)
	City of Brooklyn Park	1 (id. ¶ 89.)
	City of Champlin	1 (id. ¶ 93.)
	City of Coon Rapids	7 (id. ¶ 97.)
	City of Elk River	7 (id. ¶ 105.)
	City of Howard Lake	26 (id. ¶ 113.)
	City of Maplewood	125 (id. ¶ 117.)
	City of Minnetonka	N/A (id. ¶ 121)1
City of Mora	8 (id. ¶ 125.)
	City of North St. Paul	48 (id. ¶ 129.)
	City of Ramsey	25 (id. ¶ 133.)
	City of Rogers	10 (id. ¶ 141.)
	City of Roseville	12 (id. ¶ 145.)
	City of St. Paul	12 (id. ¶ 153.)
	Dakota County	2 (id. ¶ 101.)
	Anoka County	95 (id. ¶ 73.)
	Sherburne County	30 (id. ¶ 149.)
	Washington County	24 (id. ¶ 157.)
	Ramsey County	5 (id. ¶ 137.)

Plaintiff alleges that the searches detailed above were not based on any legitimate law-enforcement, governmental, judicial, or litigation-related purpose. (Compl. ¶¶ 74, 255 [Doc. No. 1].) Rather, Rollins claims that these inquiries were a result of governmental employees' curiosity about, or romantic attraction to, Rollins. (Id. ¶ 255.) In fact, before filing suit, Plaintiff requested Entity Defendants “to provide her with any permissible reason it or its employees, agents, and officers had in looking up her information,” but Defendants allegedly “never provided any legitimate permissible reason.” (Id. ¶ 258.)

Plaintiff describes the driver's license information at issue. She alleges that individual Defendants viewed the following private information: “home address, color photograph or image, date of birth, eye color, height, weight, driver's identification number, and upon information and belief, medical and social security information.” (Id. ¶ 164.) The Court held oral argument on all of the aforementioned motions on June 19, 2014 [Doc. No. 94].²

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendant Dakota County also moves for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c). When evaluating a motion to dismiss, the Court assumes the facts in the Complaint to be true and construes all reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Morton v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir.1986). However, the Court need not accept as true wholly conclusory allegations, Hanten v. School District of Riverview Gardens, 183 F.3d 799, 805 (8th Cir.1999), or legal conclusions Plaintiff draws from the facts pled. Westcott v. City of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir.1990). In addition, the Court ordinarily does not consider matters outside the pleadings on a motion to dismiss. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). The Court may, however, consider exhibits attached to the complaint and documents that are necessarily embraced by the pleadings, Mattes v. ABC Plastics, Inc., 323 F.3d 695, 697 n. 4 (8th Cir.2003), and may also consider public records, Levy v. Ohl, 477 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir.2007).³

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief...