Prutsman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN PRUTSMAN, et al., Case No. 23-cv-01131-VC

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

v. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS

NONSTOP ADMINISTRATION AND

INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 39 Defendant.

Nonstop’s motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. This order assumes the reader’s familiarity with the factual allegations, the relevant law, and the parties’ arguments. 1. The plaintiffs’ sole allegation in support of their claim for breach of fiduciary duty is that Nonstop “became a fiduciary by its undertaking and guardianship of the PHI/PII[.]” Dkt. No. 38 at 30. This is nowhere near adequate to allege the existence of a fiduciary duty, and so Count III must be dismissed.1 2. An intrusion upon seclusion occurs when “[o]ne intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, [and] is [then] subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the

1 The parties spend most of their briefing on this claim debating whether the California courts have decided that…