Taha v. Bucks County
9 F. Supp. 3d 490
E.D. Pa.2014Background
- In 1998 Taha was arrested; he accepted accelerated rehabilitative disposition and obtained an expungement order in 2000.
- In 2007 Bucks County posted Taha’s 1998 mugshot and arrest information on a public website; Citizens Information Associates (CIA) obtained and republished that material on bustedmugshots.com and mugshotsonline.com.
- Taha alleges CIA’s business model is to publicize mugshots to generate ad revenue and to charge individuals to remove (“unpublish”) their information.
- Taha sued Bucks County, BCCF, and the unknown website operators; CIA was later identified as owner/operator of two sites and added as defendant in a Second Amended Complaint.
- Taha pleaded three claims against CIA: (1) violation of Pennsylvania CHRIA § 9121 (dissemination of criminal history), (2) unauthorized use of name/likeness under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8316, and (3) false light invasion of privacy. CIA moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 9121 of CHRIA prohibits CIA’s republication of expunged arrest information | Taha argues county violated § 9121 and subsequent republication by CIA constitutes an independent violation | CIA contends § 9121 regulates criminal justice agencies only and does not apply to private actors | Dismissed with prejudice: § 9121 does not reach private publishers like CIA |
| Whether § 8316 (unauthorized use of name/likeness) applies to Taha’s claim | Taha alleges CIA profited by exploiting his name/likeness and can plead commercial value | CIA argues Taha has not alleged his name/likeness has commercial value as required | Dismissed without prejudice: plaintiff may replead to allege commercial value |
| Whether CIA’s publications give rise to a false-light claim | Taha contends selective presentation (bold “BUSTED!” layout, prominent charges, small disclaimer) creates false impression of criminality | CIA points to accuracy of facts and a disclaimer; argues no reckless disregard for falsity | Denied as to false light: complaint plausibly alleges highly offensive false impression and reckless disregard |
| Whether the motion may consider the website image attached to the motion | N/A (reliant on the image to prove impression) | CIA submitted the webpage image; authenticity undisputed | Court considered the webpage image as it was integral and undisputed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard requires plausible claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a claim that is plausible on its face)
- Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (federal courts apply state substantive law in diversity cases)
- West v. AT & T Co., 311 U.S. 223 (cautions on applying state law where federal decisions guide prediction)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Buffetta, 230 F.3d 634 (3d Cir.) (predicting state law when no controlling state decision)
- Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192 (3d Cir.) (court may consider exhibits and public records on a motion to dismiss)
- Schmidt v. Deutsch Larrimore Farnish & Anderson, LLP, 876 A.2d 1044 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (CHRIA governs dissemination by criminal justice agencies)
- Lewis v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 422 (E.D. Pa.) (§ 8316 claims require showing name/likeness has commercial value developed by investment)
- Larsen v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 543 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (false-light can arise from selective presentation of true facts)
- Santillo v. Reedel, 634 A.2d 264 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (false-light elements: publicization of highly offensive false statement with knowledge or reckless disregard)