Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 01-30-2023

Case Style:

Jehu Bryant v. MX Holdings US, Inc., et al.

Case Number: 2:22-cv-00855

Judge: Gloria M. Navarro

Court: United States District Court for the District of Nevada (Clark County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best * Lawyer Directory

If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer.

Defendant's Attorney: James E Whitmire, III, Catherine A. Green, Mark A. Olthoff

Description: Las Vegas, Nevada civil litigation lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendants on breach of contract theories.

MoreLaw Legal News For Las Vegas

This case arises from a data breach of Defendants' network on or around October 28, 2021, in which hackers allegedly stole the personally identifiable information (“PII”) of Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals (“Data Breach”). Plaintiff alleges that thousands of individuals were affected by the Data Breach. Specifically, hackers accessed individuals' names, dates of birth, social security numbers, driver's license numbers, passport numbers, financial account numbers, and medical information.

Defendants are corporations that perform building construction, in addition to providing safety and fire protection services. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “failed to comply with industry standards or even implement rudimentary security practices,” which resulted in the Data Breach. On May 10, 2022, approximately five months after the Data Breach, Defendants notified Plaintiff in a letter that his PII may have been compromised.

Plaintiff posits he and similarly situated class members now face a heightened long-term risk of future harm, specifically harm posed by identity theft and fraud. Plaintiff alleges that identity thieves often hold onto to PII for “several years before using and/or selling the information to other identity thieves. Plaintiff further argues with access to the PII at issue, criminals can open financial accounts, obtain medical services, obtain government benefits, file fraudulent tax returns, and obtain driver's licenses. Moreover, Plaintiff asserts that the PII leaked in the breach will likely be sold or disseminated on the dark web.

Plaintiff contends that Defendants failed to reasonably maintain safety and security measures, especially in light of “industry wide warnings” about the risk of cyber-attacks. Plaintiff argues that industry standards highlight several basic cybersecurity safeguards that can improve cyber resilience including: (a) the proper encryption of PII; (b) educating and training employees on how to protect PII; and (c) correcting the configuration of software and network devices. Plaintiff posits that the Data Breach could have been prevented had Defendants remedied the deficiencies in their data security systems and adopted security measures recommended by experts in the industry and the Federal Trade Commission. Plaintiff, to mitigate the risk of harm posed by the Data Breach, “review[ed] and monitor[ed] his accounts, enroll[ed] in the free credit monitoring offered, and plac[ed] an alert on his credit with Experian.”

On May 27, 2022, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed the present Complaint, alleging claims for: (1) negligence; (2) invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts and intrusion upon seclusion; (3) breach of contract; and (4) breach of implied contract, as well as requesting injunctive relief to require Defendants to update their security protocols. On July 29, 2022, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss.

Outcome: 01/30/2023 37 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 1/30/2023.

On December 22, 2022, the Court entered the 36 Order dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff Jehu Bryant's 1 Complaint. The 36 Order provided Plaintiff until January 23, 2022, to file an amended complaint, and advised him that "failure to file an amended complaint will result in a final order dismissing this civil action either for want of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to prosecute in compliance with a court order requiring amendment." Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, and the deadline to do so has passed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk's Office enter judgment in favor of Defendants MX Holdings US, Inc., CFP Fire Protection, Inc., COSCO Fire Protection, Inc., and Firetrol Protection Systems, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") and close the case.
(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JD) (Entered: 01/30/2023)
01/30/2023 38 JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants MX Holdings US, Inc., CFP Fire Protection, Inc., COSCO Fire Protection, Inc., and Firetrol Protection Systems, Inc., against Plaintiff, Jehu Bryant. This case is now closed per 37 Minute Order. Signed by Clerk of Court Debra K. Kempi on 1/30/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TRW) (Entered: 01/30/2023)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case