Ivonne Carbajal v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: November 18, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00041
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Ivonne Carbajal, No. CV-25-00041-PHX-DJH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Ivonne Carbajal (“Plaintiff”) has filed a class action Complaint against 16 retailer Lowe’s and software company Salesforce, alleging violations of Arizona’s 17 Telephone, Utility and Communication Service Records Act (“TUCSRA”). On March 4, 18 2025, both Defendant Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC (“Lowe’s”) Inc. and Defendant 19 Salesforce, Inc. (“Salesforce”) (collectively, “Defendants”) moved to dismiss the 20 Complaint (Docs. 14, 15). Plaintiff filed Responses to each Motion (Docs. 22, 23), and 21 Defendants filed their respective Replies. (Docs. 24, 25). On November 14, 2025, 22 Defendants filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. 26) in support of their Motions 23 to Dismiss. 24 TUCSRA protects public utility records, telephone records, and communication 25 service records. A.R.S. § 44-1376.01(A)(1). Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a singular cause 26 of action under TUCSRA against Defendants. The claim is based on a theory that Lowe’s 27 marketing emails, containing Salesforce’s “spy pixels,” reported to Defendants how 28 individuals engaged with the content without their knowledge or authorization. (See 1 generally Doc. 1-1 at 2–17). 2 Plaintiff has filed largely similar cases in this District. In Carbajal v. Home Depot 3 U.S.A., Inc., Plaintiff filed the same TUCSRA claim against a different home improvement 4 retailer, Home Depot. 2024 WL 5118416 (D. Ariz. 2024). The case was ultimately 5 dismissed for failure to state a claim under TUSCRA. Id. at *5. In Carbajal v. The Gap, 6 Inc., Case No. 24-CV-01056-PHX-ROS (“The Gap”), Plaintiff filed the same claim against 7 The Gap, Inc., but the parties later settled the case. (The Gap, ECF Doc. 22). In Carbajal 8 v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc., Case No. 24-CV-01030-PHX-DLR (“Lowes I”), Plaintiff filed 9 the same claim against the same Defendants, but the action was voluntarily dismissed after 10 Defendants each filed a motion to dismiss. (Lowes I, ECF Doc. 24) 11 Plaintiff is not alone in her efforts. Several other plaintiffs have also filed TUCSRA 12 claims aimed at marketing emails with tracking pixels. Such claims have been considered 13 in Williams v. Pac. Sunwear of Cal. LLC, 2025 WL 1135160, at *4 (D. Ariz. Apr. 16, 14 2025); Camp v. Sephora USA, Inc., No. 24-CV-07330 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2025) at ECF 15 No. 22 (order granting motion to dismiss); D’Hedouville v. H&M Fashion USA, Inc., No. 16 CV-20243386 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Oct. 11, 2024), appeal dismissed, No. 2 CA-CV 2024-0390 17 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2025); and Mills v. Saks.com LLC, No. 23-CV-10638, 2025 WL 18 34828, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2025). All of these TUSCRA claims have been dismissed 19 as conduct that falls outside the scope of the statute.1 See also Carbajal v. Home Depot 20 U.S.A., Inc., 2024 WL 5118416, *5 (D. Ariz. 2024). In her Responses, Plaintiff notes that 21 as of May 9, 2025, an Arizona appellate court had yet to weigh in on the issue. (See Doc. 22 22 at 7; Doc. 23 at 11–12). This is no longer true. (See Doc. 26). 23 On November 13, 2025, the Arizona Court of Appeals rendered a decision affirming 24 the dismissal of the plaintiff’s TUCSRA claim against Target Corporation. Smith v. Target 25 Corp., 2025 WL 3166035 (Ariz. App. Div. 1, 2025). The plaintiff there pursued a similar 26 claim to Plaintiff here, alleging that “Target embedded spy pixels in its marketing emails 27 1 In other jurisdictions, complaints have been dismissed for lack of standing. See Hartley 28 v. Urb. Outfitters, Inc., 740 F. Supp. 3d 410 (E.D. Pa. 2024); Campos v. TJX Companies, Inc., 2025 WL 360677 (D. Mass. 2025) 1 that were designed to extract email data without his consent, including when he opens the 2 email and if he forwards the email.” Id. at *1. In affirming the lower court’s dismissal, 3 the Arizona Court of Appeals stated: 4 Logs of email access, logs of associated email addresses, email client types, email path data, recipient locations, IP addresses, email forwarding data, and 5 device information collected from a spy pixel on a marketing email from 6 Target are neither “access logs” nor “records of the path of an electronic communication between the point of origin and the point of delivery.” And 7 because Smith does not allege that he is subscribed to a communication 8 service provider nor that Target unlawfully procured his subscriber information from a communication service provider, Smith’s claims are not 9 covered by TUCSRA. 10 Id. at *3. 11 Federal courts “are bound by a state court’s construction of the laws of that state[.]” 12 Stephan v. Dowdle, 733 F.2d 642, 642 (9th Cir. 1984); Gentry v. MacDougall, 685 F.2d 13 322, 323 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Absent extraordinary circumstances, which do not obtain in this 14 case, a federal court is bound by a state court's construction of the laws of that state.”). 15 Pronouncements of the Arizona Supreme Court on applicable state law are binding, “but 16 in the absence of such pronouncements, [the Court follows] decisions of the [Arizona Court 17 of Appeals] unless there is convincing evidence that the [Arizona Supreme Court] would 18 hold otherwise.” Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Services, LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 889 (9th Cir. 19 2010). 20 With this Smith decision in mind, Plaintiff must show cause as to why her Complaint 21 should not be dismissed. Upon review, Plaintiff, in her Complaint, espouses the same 22 allegations and theory of liability under the TUCSRA as the plaintiff in Smith. The Arizona 23 Court of Appeals has just foreclosed this claim. 24 Accordingly, 25 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff must show cause, within seven (7) days of this 26 Order, as to why her Complaint should not be dismissed in light of the Arizona Court of 27 Appeals decision in Smith v. Target. Alternatively, the parties must meet and confer and 28 inform the Court whether they are able to reach a resolution on this matter within seven (7) days of this Order. 2 Dated this 18th day of November, 2025. 3

S norable'Diang/4. Hurmetewa 6 United States District Fudge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-