Richard Stehl and Richard G. Haddad v. James M. Cretella

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut considers Defendant James M. Cretella’s motion to dismiss a claim for intrusion upon seclusion brought by Richard Stehl and Richard G. Haddad. The court concludes that New York law applies under Connecticut choice-of-law principles and that New York does not recognize the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. The court dismisses the claim with leave to replead a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs adequately alleged standing because the alleged misconduct by Cretella may have contributed to their injuries; the injuries were not so completely attributable to plaintiffs' own fault as to break the causal chain.
2. New York law governs the intrusion-upon-seclusion claim because New York has the most significant relationship to the dispute.
3. An outcome-determinative conflict existed because Connecticut recognizes intrusion upon seclusion while New York does not recognize a common-law right of privacy encompassing that tort.
4. The intrusion-upon-seclusion claim was dismissed because New York law applies and New York does not recognize that tort.
5. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend to assert a single claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; the court deferred any futility determination until a renewed motion to dismiss.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because their alleged injuries were self-inflicted by vulnerabilities in the law firm's file-security system.
2. Whether Connecticut or New York law governed the intrusion-upon-seclusion claim under Connecticut choice-of-law principles.
3. Whether New York recognizes a common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion.
4. Whether plaintiffs should receive leave to amend to assert intentional infliction of emotional distress after dismissal of the intrusion-upon-seclusion claim.

Disposition

dismissed