Pichler v. Unite
| Decision Date | 17 October 2006 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 04-2841. |
| Citation | 457 F.Supp.2d 524 |
| Parties | Elizabeth PICHLER, et al. v. UNITE (Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees AFL-CIO). |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Dennis Torreggiani, Susan M. Jennik, Thomas M. Kennedy, Kennedy, Jennik & Murray, P.C., Irwin Rochman, Rochman Platzer Fallick Sternheim Luca & Pearl, LLP, New York, NY, Laurence M. Goodman, Mark Featherman, Willig Williams & Davidson, Thomas Herman Kohn, Markowitz & Richman, Philadelphia, PA, for UNITE (Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees AFL-CIO).
Before us now is plaintiffs' motion to amend the August 30, 2006 Judgment (the "Judgment"), and the parties' briefs on this matter, filed pursuant to our Order of September 20, 2006, wherein we instructed them to address various issues concerning remedies.
On August 30, 2006, we held that UNITE HERE ("UNITE") had violated the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 ("DPPA" or the "Act"), and therefore granted judgment in favor of the named plaintiffs and against UNITE as to liability. See Pichler v. UNITE, 446 F.Supp.2d 353 (E.D.Pa.2006). We also certified the case for appeal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).1 See id. at 372-73. In a letter submitted to the Court on September 7, 2006, plaintiffs contend that under Sussex Drug Products v. Kanasco, Ltd., 920 F.2d 1150 (3d Cir.1990), and its progeny, the Judgment is not "final" for purposes of a Rule 54(b) appeal because we have not yet resolved all of the remedial issues as to the named plaintiffs.
We notified the parties that we would treat plaintiffs' letter as a motion to amend the Judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). See Order of Sept. 20, 2006 and attached Letter of Sept. 7, 2006. To remove any uncertainty as to our Court of Appeals's jurisdiction over an appeal on the Judgment in favor of the named plaintiffs and against UNITE, we shall now resolve the open remedial issues as they concern these plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs seek three forms of relief: statutory damages, punitive damages, as well as an injunction. They also ask that the Judgment specify that they may file a request for attorneys' fees and costs if they prevail after exhaustion of appeals.2
The DPPA's remedies for civil actions are set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 2724, which provides:
(a) Cause of action.—A person who knowingly obtains, discloses or uses personal information, from a motor vehicle record, for a purpose not permitted under this chapter shall be liable to the individual to whom the information pertains, who may bring a civil action in a United States district court,
(a) Remedies.— The court may award—
(1) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages in the amount of $2,500;
(2) punitive damages upon proof of willful or reckless disregard of the law;
(3) reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred; and
(4) such other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate.
18 U.S.C. § 2724 (emphasis added).
The plain language of Section 2724— "the court may award"—leaves no doubt that Congress gave district courts the discretion to grant or deny each of the remedies. As the Eleventh Circuit has explained:
[T]he district court, in its discretion, may fashion what it deems to be an appropriate award. Among the options for the district court is the option to award "actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages in the amount of $2,500." In fashioning an appropriate award, the district court may also consider the other forms of relief that are available and were requested by [the plaintiff]—punitive damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and the destruction of all of [plaintiffs] personal information illegally obtained from motor vehicle records.
Kehoe v. Fidelity Federal Bank & Trust, 421 F.3d 1209, 1217 (11th Cir.2005), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1612, 164 L.Ed.2d 353 (2006). We now consider the facts of this case in order to "fashion ... an appropriate award."
In the Judgment, we awarded each named plaintiff $2,500 in statutory damages, with the exception of Thomas Riley and Amy Riley, to whom we granted a single statutory damages award of $2,500 because they are married co-owners of the vehicle whose license plate UNITE searched.3 The parties now contest how the statutory damages are properly calculated. We first turn to their arguments concerning the relevance of a vehicle's title, and then consider how statutory damages should be assessed for each plaintiff.
The parties disagree as to whether joint owners of a vehicle are each entitled to a separate statutory damages award of $2,500 or whether they must share that award. This issue affects four named plaintiffs: husband and wife Thomas Riley and Amy Riley who co-owned a car, and mother and son Holly Marston and Seth Nye who co-owned a car. UNITE searched these jointly-owned cars' license plates and thereby obtained the identities of these four named plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs argue that the DPPA's focus is protecting privacy, not property, so coownership of vehicles is immaterial for purposes of calculating damages awards. Likewise, they contend that the relationship between any given co-owners is irrelevant. In particular, they assert that Thomas Riley and Amy Riley, who own their car as tenants by the entireties, each enjoys a right to privacy of his or her "personal information."4 Plaintiffs note that nothing in the DPPA suggests that a vehicle's co-ownership affects its owners' interest in safeguarding the confidentiality of their personal information. In fact, the DPPA makes violators liable "to the individual to whom the information pertains." 18 U.S.C. § 2724(a) (emphasis added).
UNITE argues that Congress intended for co-owners of a vehicle to share one statutory damages award. In other words, UNITE contends that it should not have to pay multiple statutory damages awards for a single "transaction." Regardless of whether we agree with this position, UNITE asserts that we should exercise our discretion to decline to give multiple awards for a transaction involving only one vehicle.
UNITE also contends that certain coowners do not have standing to sue under the DPPA. The DPPA authorizes civil actions by an "individual" and, with respect to Thomas Riley and Amy Riley, UNITE contends that because the information in their motor vehicle title pertains to an "entity," i.e. their tenancy by the entireties, they are not "individuals" within the meaning of the DPPA and therefore lack standing to sue. For Seth Nye and Holly Marston, UNITE states the record is unclear as to whether they are joint tenants or tenants in common. UNITE contends that this lack of evidence as to whether they own the car as an "entity" or an "individual" means that they cannot recover under the DPPA.
We have already explained what is necessary for standing to sue under the DPPA:
The DPPA provides a private cause of action to "the individual to whom [unlawfully obtained, disclosed, or used] information pertains." See 18 U.S.C. § 2724(a) (2005). If the information does not "pertain" to an individual, then that individual may not sue under the DPPA. In other words, the only "interest" that the DPPA protects is an individual's interest in the privacy of motor vehicle records that include information about her. If a motor vehicle record does not include information about a person, then that person has no "legally protected interest" in the confidentiality of that motor vehicle record.
Pichler v. UNITE, 228 F.R.D. 230, 241 (E.D.Pa.2005). When UNITE searched the license plates of the vehicle owned by Thomas Riley and Ann Riley, and the vehicle owned by Holly Marston and Seth Rye, it obtained information about each of these four people. Each of them has an "interest" in the privacy of the motor vehicle record that included information about him or her, so each one has standing to sue.
As to UNITE's argument that each transaction only merits a single damages award, nothing in the DPPA supports that reading.5 Congress intended to protect the confidentiality of people's identities and other personal information, and it undoubtedly knew when drafting the DPPA that some vehicles are co-owned. Nevertheless, it gave each "individual to whom the information pertains" the right to sue.
Thus, an individual's DPPA-protected interest in shielding her privacy is not diluted because she co-owns a vehicle, and neither should her damages award be.
In sum, each person whose DPPA-protected interest UNITE violated is entitled to sue individually for each of the remedies set forth in Section 2724(b). We shall therefore amend the Judgment to grant separate damages awards to Thomas Riley and Amy Riley.
Plaintiffs do not seek actual damages, but they do ask us to recalculate each award of liquidated damages. They contend that UNITE should pay $2,500 for each time it "obtainfed]" or "use[d]" the personal information in violation of the DPPA. They deem each home visit and each mailing—except for mailings done in connection with the Veliz v. Cintas litigation, see Pichler v. UNITE, at 368—a separate "use[]." Thus, if UNITE searched one's license plate number to get one's name and address, then visited one at home, and also mailed one a union newsletter, plaintiffs contend that such a victim is entitled to $7,500. Of the nine named plaintiffs, three claim they suffered two violations each and seek $5,000 per person, and six claim they suffered three violations each and seek $7,500 per person.
UNITE contends that plaintiffs' calculation of statutory damages is contrary to the DPPA's language and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pichler v. Unite
...the court amended its previous judgment and granted UNITE summary judgment on the issue of punitive damages. See Pichler v. UNITE, 457 F.Supp.2d 524 (E.D.Pa.2006) (Pichler III). The court also granted separate awards to Thomas Riley and Amy Riley, co-owners of a vehicle whose records UNITE ......
- Knepper v. Rite Aid Corp.
- Ellis v. Edward D, Jones & Co., L.P.
- Salazar v. Agriprocessors, Inc.