Filed: Oct. 07, 2020
Latest Update: Oct. 07, 2020
Summary: Case: 20-50080 Document: 00515592787 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 7, 2020 No. 20-50080 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Alison Hovanec, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Traci Miller, Defendant—Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:17-CV-766 Before Graves, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Alison Hovanec and Traci Miller we
Summary: Case: 20-50080 Document: 00515592787 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/07/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 7, 2020 No. 20-50080 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Alison Hovanec, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Traci Miller, Defendant—Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:17-CV-766 Before Graves, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Alison Hovanec and Traci Miller wer..
More
Case: 20-50080 Document: 00515592787 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/07/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 7, 2020
No. 20-50080 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Alison Hovanec,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Traci Miller,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:17-CV-766
Before Graves, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Alison Hovanec and Traci Miller were close friends for three years.
Now they have been mired in a lawsuit that has lasted the length of their
friendship. Hovanec believes that Miller hacked Hovanec’s iCloud account
and sent her disparaging emails from an “alisontheloser” Google profile. So
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-50080 Document: 00515592787 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/07/2020
No. 20-50080
she sued Miller in federal court, 1 asserting violations of the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act and the Stored Communications Act, as well as several state
tort-law claims.
Hovanec requested $1 million for mental anguish and time and money
spent investigating the hack. But she struggled to produce evidence of
damages. Her initial disclosures did not list a damages theory or estimate any
losses, and she failed to answer basic questions about damages during her
deposition.
After discovery closed, Miller moved for summary judgment based on
a lack of damages. Hovanec responded that she did indeed suffer harm. And
she submitted an affidavit that, in her view, detailed her investigation of the
hack and mental anguish that resulted from the disparaging emails.
The district court initially denied Miller’s motion, concluding that the
affidavit was “sufficient to raise a fact issue on . . . mental anguish damages.”
But it later ruled that Hovanec’s affidavit failed to show that she lost any
money responding to the hack. It also excluded the affidavit’s discussion of
mental anguish as a discovery sanction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). The
court then rejected Hovanec’s argument that she could pursue a Stored
Communications Act claim without actual damages and granted summary
judgment to Miller.
On appeal, Hovanec primarily argues that the district court abused its
discretion in excluding her evidence of mental-anguish damages. We affirm
for a different reason: even considering the affidavit in its entirety, Hovanec
1
Hovanec also sued her ex-husband, Moises Luevano, for allegedly hacking into
her AOL account. The district court dismissed the claims against him based on an
arbitration agreement that he entered into with Hovanec during their divorce proceedings.
Hovanec did not appeal that dismissal.
2
Case: 20-50080 Document: 00515592787 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/07/2020
No. 20-50080
has no evidence of damages. McGruder v. Will, 204 F.3d 220, 222 (5th Cir.
2000) (explaining that we “may affirm on any grounds supported by the
record”).
Hovanec’s affidavit runs 28 pages. She points to the last four
paragraphs as evidence of the mental anguish Miller allegedly caused. But
those paragraphs have little, if anything, to do with the iCloud hack or
disparaging emails. They instead accuse Miller of, among other things:
“manipulat[ing] situations with my employment, my friends, my coworkers,
[and] my divorce”; “interfer[ing] with the relationship with my children”;
“colluding with my ex-husband”; and “spread[ing] allegations about me to
taint my relationship with the children’s school and with Child Protective
Services.” And without mentioning the iCloud hack or disparaging emails,
the affidavit devotes only one sentence to damages: “I will never be the same
person I was before I met . . . Miller and will have a life long struggle with
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder[,] . . . mental anguish, isolation, sorrow, fear,
humiliation and constant distress.”
Even viewed in the light most favorable to Hovanec, the affidavit does
not connect any damages for mental anguish to the incidents giving rise to
this suit. 2 That lack of causation is critical. It means that Hovanec failed to
create a fact issue showing that the allegedly unlawful conduct caused
damages. See Johnson v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, L.L.C., 916 F.3d 505, 509–10
2
We therefore assume arguendo that Hovanec’s affidavit provides sufficient detail
about her mental anguish. Miller argued otherwise in the district court, and at best for
Hovanec that issue presents a close call. See Miller v. Raytheon Co., 716 F.3d 138, 147 (5th
Cir. 2013) (noting that “[a] plaintiff’s conclusory statements that he suffered emotional
harm are insufficient” to support an award of mental-anguish damages); Brady v. Fort Bend
Cty.,
145 F.3d 691, 718 (5th Cir. 1998) (“[T]here must be a specific discernable injury to
the claimant’s emotional state, proven with evidence regarding the nature and extent of the
harm.” (quotations omitted)). We need not decide the question, however, because we find
no evidence linking the mental anguish to the hacking and emails.
3
Case: 20-50080 Document: 00515592787 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/07/2020
No. 20-50080
(5th Cir. 2019) (“Johnson did not connect her alleged [mental-anguish]
damages to the letters threatening foreclosure that are the basis for this
particular claim.”); L & F Homes & Dev., L.L.C. v. City of Gulfport, 538 F.
App’x 395, 408 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (“There is insufficient evidence
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that Mitrenga’s mental anguish was
caused by Gulfport’s alleged underlying unlawful conduct . . . .”).
Hovanec acknowledges that most of her claims—those arising under
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and state law—require actual damages.
So our conclusion that she has not created a fact issue on that element
supports the grant of summary judgment on those claims.
But Hovanec argues that the Stored Communications Act allows
plaintiffs to recover statutory damages even in the absence of actual damages.
Under the Act, a “court may assess as damages . . . the sum of the actual
damages suffered by the plaintiff[,] . . . but in no case shall a person entitled
to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000.” 18 U.S.C. § 2707(c). Two
courts of appeals have construed that language. In thorough, well-reasoned
opinions, both concluded that parties must prove actual damages to obtain
the $1,000 award. See Vista Mktg., LLC v. Burkett, 812 F.3d 954, 964–975
(11th Cir. 2016); Van Alstyne v. Elec. Scriptorium, Ltd.,
560 F.3d 199, 204–208
(4th Cir. 2009). The Fourth and Eleventh Circuits recognized the similarity
of the Stored Communications Act’s statutory damages provision to that of
the Privacy Act, which the Supreme Court held requires actual damages
before the statutory minimum kicks in. See Vista Mktg.,
LLC, 812 F.3d at
965–67; Van
Alstyne, 560 F.3d at 205 (both citing Doe v. Chao,
540 U.S. 614
(2004)). Among other things, Doe recognized that the phrase “person
entitled to recovery” refers back to a plaintiff who suffers “actual
damages.”
540 U.S. at 620 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4)(A)). The same link appears
in the Stored Communications Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 2707(c) (“person
entitled to recover”).
4
Case: 20-50080 Document: 00515592787 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/07/2020
No. 20-50080
The Fourth and Eleventh Circuits’ opinions are convincing. Hovanec
cannot, therefore, maintain a claim under the Act without actual damages.
And since she has none, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
5
