Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 351
plaintiffs appealed, and the commonwealth court reversed in relevant part. In so doing,
it rejected the trial court’s understanding of the Firearms Act, and its conclusion that
“public disclosure” as used in Section 6111(i) incorporated the “publicity” element
necessary to prove an invasion of privacy. Id. Instead, the commonwealth court clarified
that in order to establish an invasion of privacy under common law, the plaintiff must
prove that a private matter is “made public, by communicating it to the public at large, or
to so many persons that the matter must be regarded as substantially certain to become
one of public knowledge,” and, that the disclosure is “highly offensive to the reasonable
person.” Id. at 1027-28. On remand to the trial court, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification on behalf of the individuals who had their confidential license to carry
firearms applicant information disclosed by the County in violation of their right to
privacy, and the Firearms Act. Id. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the
plaintiffs failed to satisfy the numerosity requirement as set forth in the Pennsylvania
Code of Civil Procedure Rule 1702, despite evidence of an estimated class size of
approximately 9,000. Id. at 1029. The trial court reasoned that there was no disclosure
of confidential information because there was no evidence that anyone other than the
licensee had read the contents of the postcard, thereby requiring an individualized
analysis for each class member on whether the postcard was, in fact, read by a third
party. Id. at 1035. The plaintiffs appealed, and the commonwealth court reviewed the
decision for abuse of discretion. In rejecting the trial court’s analysis, the commonwealth
court noted that Plaintiff’s complaint sought redress for the County’s use of postcards on
which license information was “visible” by all individuals processing and serving the
mail, not that a third party “actually read” the information on the postcards. Id. Moreover,
the County admitted that it had issued thousands of licenses to carry from 2013 through
2016, and used postcards to notify successful applicants for licenses and renewals
through January 2016. Id. at 1036. Because each postcard recipient was a member of
the prospective class, the commonwealth court held that the trial court had erred in
holding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the numerosity requirement. Id. The
commonwealth court vacated the order and remanded the matter to the trial court to
make determinations on the remaining class action requirements under Rule 1702. Id.
Finally, in Chester Upland School District, et al. v. Rossi, 2022 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 53
(Pa. Commw. Apr. 29, 2022). The plaintiffs, two political subdivisions of Delaware
County, sought to represent a proposed class of all political subdivisions throughout the
entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that filed a document in any of the Courts of
Common Pleas and were charged fees in excess of the statutorily filing fees. Id. at *2.
The court first addressed the threshold issue of standing because the plaintiff
subdivisions sought to bring a class action on behalf of themselves and as
representatives of 3,000 other political subdivisions which may or may not have paid the
unauthorized and excessive filing fees at issue. Id. at *10. The court found that the
plaintiffs lacked standing to maintain an action against any defendant other than within
their own county because they failed to allege that they had been aggrieved by any
courts outside of Delaware County, and dismissed the claims against all except
Delaware County courts. Id. Turning to the other claims for declaratory relief and unjust
enrichment, the court found the claims speculative because the plaintiffs only alleged
that they may have been overcharged, while also conceding that a fee increase was
350
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
