Ocean Tomo, LLC v. Barney, 2013 WL 4804980 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 9, 2013) (7th Cir.)
Plaintiff asserted a civil claim for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and alleged that it suffered over $5,000 in damages–that is, it claimed its damages were its loss. Defendant moved to dismiss the claim because Plaintiff failed to adequately plead the “loss” which is a jurisdictional threshold. The court granted the motion:
In its response to the motion to dismiss, PatentRatings [an entity formed by Defendant Barney] asserts that the law about “loss” is unclear and states that it is “in the process of conducting a further evaluation of Ocean Tomo’s wrongful acts with respect to PatentRatings’ computer servers, and the extent of resulting damage and/or loss. As a result, PatentRatings respectfully suggests that, rather than brief Ocean Tomo’s motion to dismiss Count VI in the context of the current pleading,” the court should allow it to amend its CFAA claim within 30 days, “if [it] chooses to do so.” Resp. at 14. Given PatentRating’s tacit concession that its CFAA
claim is deficient, that claim is dismissed.