960 F. Supp. 2d 335
D. Mass.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Morra allege Casey violated CORI and the DPPA by an unlawful check that exposed their statutorily protected personal information.
- Casey contends he acted with a legitimate law enforcement purpose, and the Town of Rehoboth (and its insurer Redland) refused to defend him.
- Praetorian Insurance seeks to intervene as Redland’s successor to propose special verdict questions and potentially affect post-judgment liability.
- Eight days before trial, Casey moves to dismiss Count I on the ground that the CORI claim is time-barred under a one-year statute of limitations if CORI is construed as penal.
- The court must decide (a) whether Praetorian may intervene and (b) whether CORI is a civil remedy or a criminal penalty, affecting the limitations analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Praetorian may intervene | Praetorian seeks intervention as of right or permissively. | Praetorian is untimely and lacks a direct interest. | Intervention allowed under Rule 24(b)(2). |
| Whether CORI is a civil remedy or a penal statute for limitations purposes | CORI provides civil remedies; three-year SOL applies. | CORI is penal, imposing a one-year SOL. | CORI is a civil remedy; one-year limitations does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ungar v. Arafat, 634 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2011) (timeliness and intervention principles discussed)
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Dingwell, 884 F.2d 629 (1st Cir. 1989) (intervention standards and considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Cory, 454 Mass. 559 (Mass. 2009) (statutory interpretation of private civil remedies)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (Supreme Court 2003) (analysis of civil versus criminal penalties and due process)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Fenton, 819 F. Supp. 89 (D. Mass. 1993) (rationales of privacy statute purposes in Massachusetts)