TAHA v. BENSALEM TOWNSHIP et al, 2:12-cv-06867

Background

Bucks County operated an Inmate Lookup Tool (ILT) from 2011 publishing booking photos and criminal-history data (including for individuals with expunged records); private companies republished some data.
Taha sued under Pennsylvania’s CHRIA on behalf of all persons whose criminal-history information appeared on the ILT; the court found liability on summary judgment for dissemination but dismissed compensatory damages claims.
A punitive-damages class was certified; a jury found Defendants’ CHRIA violations willful and awarded $1,000 per class member (statutory minimum); defendants appealed to the Third Circuit.
While the appeal was pending the parties mediated and agreed to a claims-made settlement: aggregate payouts between $3.5 million (minimum) and $10 million (ceiling); each valid claimant entitled to $600 (60% of jury award).
Settlement also provides programmatic relief (limited expungement/addiction services), a $4 million fee-and-expense payment to class counsel (fees ~$3.538M; expenses ~$461,835) paid separately, and a $30,000 service award to Taha; notice was sent to 40,319 class members and ~10,232 claims were submitted (10,232 ultimately accepted).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Final approval under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) — fairness, adequacy, procedure	Taha: settlement is fair, negotiated at arms-length, provides reasonable guaranteed recovery (60% of jury award) and an effective claims process	Bucks: raised a partial objection to fee/expense accounting (pre-settlement notice costs) but otherwise negotiated settlement	Court: approved settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; Rule 23(e) and Girsh factors satisfied; parties mediated and discovery was extensive
Adequacy of class relief / claims process	Taha: $600 per claimant is reasonable given appellate risk, delay, and cost; claims process was simple and effective (25% participation)	Bucks: emphasized funding limits and appellate posture (not contesting structure)	Court: approved $600 per claimant, noted risks on appeal and found distribution method effective
Attorneys’ fees and expenses (amount and method)	Taha: award $4M (fees+expenses); lodestar appropriate given CHRIA fee-shifting and claims-made nature	Bucks: objected to inclusion of certain pre-settlement notice costs in expenses; parties resolved deduction of $60,830.53	Court: applied lodestar; computed lodestar ~$6.3M (11,878 hours), approved $4M award (negative multiplier ~0.56), and allowed $461,834.66 in expenses
Service award to class representative	Taha: $30,000 warranted for time, risk, duration, and participation	Bucks: no sustained objection after notice	Court: granted $30,000 service award as reasonable given Taha’s participation and litigation duration; no class objections

Key Cases Cited

In re Cendant Corp. Litig., 264 F.3d 201 (3d Cir.) (court must independently assess fairness of class settlement)
In re Gen. Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir.) (policy favoring settlement and factors for approval)
In re Warfarin Sodium Antitrust Litig., 391 F.3d 516 (3d Cir.) (public interest in settling class actions)
Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir.) (nine-factor test for settlement fairness)
In re Rite Aid Corp. Sec. Litig., 396 F.3d 294 (3d Cir.) (percentage-of-recovery method discussion)
Planned Parenthood of Cent. N.J. v. Att’y Gen. of N.J., 297 F.3d 253 (3d Cir.) (lodestar is presumptively reasonable fee)
In re AT&T Corp. Sec. Litig., 455 F.3d 160 (3d Cir.) (lodestar multiplier analysis)
Taha v. County of Bucks, 862 F.3d 292 (3d Cir.) (Third Circuit affirmed class certification)