Legal Opinion

Pichler v. UNITE

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided August 12, 2009No. Civil Action 04-2841PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

DALZELL, District Judge.

Defendant UNITE has moved for summary judgment on the issues of punitive damages and multiple statutory damages under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA” or “the Act”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2721-2725, as well as for reconsideration of our June 5, 2009 Order. The class plaintiffs state that they do not seek multiple statutory damages, and we shall grant UNITE’s motion for summary judgment on that issue. * We now resolve the remaining two motions.

I. Factual Background

We have previously published comprehensive recitations of the facts related to this case, see,…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. BMW of North America, Inc. v. GoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  5. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 2003

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. PAETEC Communications, Inc. v. MCI Communications Services, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2011
  2. Pichler v. UNITEDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API