Daryoush Taha v. County of Bucks
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12053
3rd Cir.2017Background
- In 2011 Bucks County published an online "Inmate Lookup Tool" containing records (including booking photos) for tens of thousands of persons who had been held at the Bucks County Correctional Facility; postings included records dating back to 1938.
- Daryoush Taha sued under Pennsylvania's Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA) after an expunged 1998 arrest and booking photo were posted online; he sought injunctive relief and actual and punitive damages.
- The District Court granted Taha partial summary judgment on liability under CHRIA (finding defendants violated the statute) but found the question of willfulness remained; it then certified a class (66,799 persons) solely to pursue punitive damages for willful violations.
- Defendants appealed under Rule 23(f), arguing (inter alia) the court erred procedurally (one-way intervention), that Taha lacked Article III and statutory "aggrieved" standing, that punitive damages cannot be awarded without compensatory damages or against government agencies, and that Rule 23(b)(3) predominance was not met.
- The Third Circuit affirmed class certification: it found no waiver of the District Court’s procedures, held Taha had Article III and CHRIA "aggrieved" standing, concluded CHRIA permits punitive damages even when compensatory damages are not recovered, decided CHRIA permits punitive damages against government agencies, and found common issues (willfulness) predominated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Taha) | Defendant's Argument (Bucks County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural one-way intervention (order of rulings) | District Court’s order was permissible; defendants waived objection | Court abused discretion by resolving merits (summary judgment) before class certification, creating one-way intervention | Defendants waived the argument by failing to raise it in district court; Court declines to address it on appeal |
| Article III standing | Intangible harms (humiliation, sleep loss) suffice as concrete injury | No compensable injury; therefore no Article III injury in fact | Taha’s testimony of humiliation, embarrassment, and related harm sufficed for Article III standing |
| CHRIA "aggrieved" statutory standing | Taha has a substantial, direct, immediate interest from the posting | Lacking pecuniary loss, he is not "aggrieved" under CHRIA | Pennsylvania standard permits non-pecuniary harms; Taha qualifies as an "aggrieved" person |
| Punitive damages without compensatory damages | CHRIA’s plain statutory scheme allows exemplary damages independently so long as there is a viable cause of action and willfulness | Absurd to award statutory punitive minimums when compensatory damages are disallowed; inconsistent with legislative intent | Under Pennsylvania law and CHRIA’s text, punitive damages may be awarded even when compensatory damages are not recovered, provided liability and willfulness are established |
| Punitive damages against government entities | CHRIA’s scope and penalties apply to agencies; statute targets government record-keepers | Punitive damages against government barred absent express waiver of sovereign immunity | CHRIA’s text (scope, remedies, and penalties) demonstrates legislative intent to subject agencies to damages, including punitive damages; award must still be reasonable |
| Predominance for class certification | Willfulness is a common, classwide issue susceptible to generalized proof | Punitive-amount determinations will require individualized inquiries about injury severity, defeating predominance | Predominance satisfied: after liability, the core remaining issue is county willfulness (common question); individualized harm is not essential to deciding willfulness or whether punitive damages should be imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) (describing historical concern of "one-way intervention" and Rule 23 amendment history)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (intangible injuries can be concrete for Article III standing)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury in fact)
- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016) (distinguishing common vs. individual questions for Rule 23(b)(3) predominance)
- Kirkbride v. Lisbon Contractors, Inc., 555 A.2d 800 (Pa. 1989) (punitive damages may be appropriate even when compensatory damages are not awarded if a cause of action and liability exist)
- Feingold v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 517 A.2d 1270 (Pa. 1986) (government agencies are generally exempt from punitive damages absent statutory authorization)
- In re Nickelodeon Consumer Privacy Litig., 827 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 2016) (intangible privacy-related harms can establish Article III standing)
- In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litig., 806 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2015) (article of standing where unlawful disclosure of protected information alleged)