2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-28-2010 

# Aaron B oring v

. Go ogle Inc P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2350

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Aar on Borin g v

. Goo gle Inc " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1994. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1994NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 09- 2350

_____________ AAR ON C . BO RI NG; CH RI S T I NE BO RI NG, h u s b a n d a n d w i f

e r e s p e c t i v e l y, A p p e llan ts v. GOO GLE I NC.

_____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 08- cv- 00694) M agi s tr at e J udge: H onor abl e A m yR eynol ds H ay

_______________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary25, 2010 Be f o r e : RE NDE L L a n d J OR DAN, C i r cui tJudges , a n d P A D O V A ,* Seni orD is tr i ct Judge. ( Fi l ed: J anuary28, 2010)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________

_______________ * H o n o rab le Jo h n R . P ad o v a, U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtS en ior Ju d g e f o r th e E astern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.G oogl e M aps i s a s ervi ce of fer ed byG oogl e that“gi ves us er s the abi l i tyt o l ook up 1 addr es s es , s ear ch forbus i nes s es , and getpoi nt - t o- poi ntdr i vi ng di r ect i ons – al l pl ot t ed on in te ra c tiv e s tr e e t m a p s ... .” (A p p . a t A 5 .) -2- J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . A ar on C . B or i ng and C hr i s t i ne B or i ng appea l fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a di s m i s s i ng thei rcompl ai ntunder Ru l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) o f

th e F e d e r a l Ru l e s o f

Ci v i l P r o c e d u r e . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we a f f ir m in p a rt a n d re v e rs e in p a rt . I . Backg r ound O n A pr i l 2, 2008, the B or i ngs comm ence d an ac t i on i n the C our tof C om m on Pl eas of A l l eghenyC ounty , Penns y l vani a aga i ns tG oogl e, I nc. , as s ert i ng cl ai m s for i nvas i on of pr i vacy , tr es pas s , i nj unct i ve r el i ef, negl i gence , and conve r s i on. T he B or i ngs s oughtcompensa t ory , i nci dent al , and cons equent i al damages i n exce s s of $25, 000 for e a c h c la im , p lu s p u n itiv e d a m a g e s a n d a tto rn e y ’s f e e s . T he B or i ngs ’ cl ai m s ar i s e fr om G oogl e’ s “Str eetV i ew ” pr ogr am, a fe atur e on G oogl e M aps thatoffe r s fr ee a cce s s on the I nt ernett o panor ami c, navi gabl e vi ew s of 1 s tr eet s i n and ar ound m aj orci t i es acr os s the U ni t ed St at es . T o cr eat e the Str eetV i ew p rog ram , rep rese n tat ives o f G o o g le att ac h p an o ram ic dig it al ca m era s to p asse n g er c ars and dr i ve ar ound ci t i es phot ogr aphi ng the ar eas al ong the s tr eet . A ccor di ng t o G oogl e,

“ [ t ] h e s c o p e o f

S tr e e tVi e w i s p u b l i c r o a d s . ” ( Ap p e l l e e ' s An s . Br . a t1 0 . ) Go o g l e a l l o wsForeas e of r efe r ence , the amended compl ai nti s r efe rr ed t o her ei n s i m pl yas the 2 “ c o m p la in t.” -3- i ndi vi dual s t o r eportand r eques tthe r emoval of i nappr opr i at e i m ages thattheyfi nd on S tr e e t V ie w . T he B or i ngs , w ho l i ve on a pr i vat e r oad i n Pi t t s bur gh, di s cover ed thatG oogl e had tak e n “ c o lo re d im a g e ryo f th e ir re sid e n c e , inc lu d in g th e sw im m in g p o o l, fro m a v e h icle in thei rr es i dence dr i vew aym onths ear l i erw i thoutobt ai ni ng anypr i vacyw ai veror author i zat i on. ” ( A pp. atA 31. ) T heyal l ege thatthei rr oad i s cl ear l ym arked w i th a

“ P riv a te R o a d , N o T re sp a ss in g ” sig n (A p p e llan ts’ O p . B r. at 1 1 ), an d th e yc o n ten d th a t, i n dri ving up theirroad t o take ph otographs for S treetV i ew and i n m aking t ho se phot ogr aphs avai l abl e t o t he publ i c, G oogl e “di s r egar ded [thei r ] pr i vacyi nt er es t . ” (I d. ) O n M ay21, 2008, G oogl e i nvoked di ver s i tyj ur i s di ct i on, r emoved t he ac t i on t o the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, and fi l ed a mot i on t o d i sm i ss. T he B ori ng s then fi l ed an am end ed co m plai nt, subst i tuti ng a cl ai m for un j ust enr i chmentforthei rear l i erconver s i on cl ai m . O n A ugus t14, 2008, G oogl e aga i n m oved 2 to d is m is s th e B o ri n g s ’ c o m p la in t f o r f a ilu re to s ta te a c la im . O n F e b ru a ry1 7 , 2 0 0 9 , the D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted G o o g le’ s m o tio n to d ism iss a s to al l of the B or i ngs ’ cl ai m s . T he C our tdi s m i s s ed the i nvas i on of pr i vacycl ai m beca us e the B or i ngs w er e unabl e t o s how thatG oogl e’ s conductw as hi ghl yoffe ns i ve t o a per s on of o rd in a ry se n s ib iliti e s . B or i ng v. G oogl e, I nc. , 598 F. Supp. 2d 695, 699- 700 ( W . D . Pa. 2009) . T he C our tdi s m i s s ed the negl i gence cl ai m beca us e i tfound thatG oogl e di d not-4-

o w e a d u ty to th e B o ri n g s . I d. a t 7 0 1 . In d ism iss in g th e tre sp a ss c laim , the C o u rt h e ld that“the B or i ngs have notal l eged f act s s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h thattheys uffe r ed any damages caus ed bythe al l eged tr es pas s . ” I d. at70 2. T he C ou rtfou nd the u njust enr i chmentcl ai m w ant i ng beca us e the part i es had no r el at i ons hi p thatcoul d be cons trued a s c o n tr a c tu a l a n d th e B o ri n g s d id n o t c o n f e r a n yth in g o f

v a lu e u p o n G o o g le . I

d. a t 7 0 3 . T he C our tal s o hel d t hatthe B or i ngs had fa i l ed t o pl ead a pl aus i bl e cl ai m fori nj unct i ve r el i ef unde rPenns y l vani a’ s “demandi ng” s t andar d fora mandat oryi nj unct i on, and d ism iss e d th e p u n iti v e d a m a g e s c laim b e c a u se th e B o rin g s f a iled to “ a lleg e f

a c ts s uffi ci entt o s uppor tthe cont ent i on thatG oogl e enga ged i n outr ageous conduct . ” Id . at 701 n. 3, 704. I n s um , the C our tconcl uded thatthe B or i ngs “fa i l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m under anycount ” and that“anyatt empt ed amendm entw oul d be fut i l e. ” I d. at698, 704 n. 8. T h e B o rin g s m o v e d f

o r re c o n sid e ra tio n , as se rtin g th a t itw a s e rro r to d ism iss th e ir tr es pas s and unj us tenr i chmentcl ai m s , as w el l as thei rr eques tforpuni t i ve damages . T he D is tr ic t C o u rt d e n ie d th e m o tio n . B o rin gv . G o o g le , C i v . A . N o . 0 8 - 6 9 4 , 2 0 0 9 WL 9 3 1 1 8 1 (W .D . P a . A p r. 6 , 2 0 0 9 ). T h e C o u rt a g a in sa id th a t th e B o rin g s h a d f a iled to a lle g e c o n d u c t n e c e s s a ry to s u p p o rt a p u n itiv e d a m a g e s a w a rd . 2 0 0 9 W L 9 3 1 1 8 1 , a t * 2 . I tal s o decl i ned t o r econs i derthe di s m i s s al of the unj us tenr i chmentcl ai m beca us e the B o ri n g s d id n o t p o in t to a n yf la w in th e C o u rt ’s d is p o s itio n o f th a t c la im . I

d. Fi nal l y , t he C our taddr es s ed the B or i ngs ’ tr es pas s cl ai m onl yt o “el i m i nat e anypos s i bi l i tythatthe lan g u a g e in [ its o p in io n ] m ig h t b e re a d to su g g e st th a t d a m a g e s a re p a rt o f a p rim a f

a c ieG oogl e t i m el yr emoved t he ac t i on t o the D i s tr i ctC our tpur s uantt o 29 U . S. C . §§ 1441 3 a n d 1 4 4 6 . T h e D i s tr i c tC o u r te x e r c i s e d d i v e r s i tyj u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 3 2 . We h a v e a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth e f i n a l o r d e r s o f

th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tu n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1291. -5- cas e fortr es pas s . ” I

d. , at*1. T o cl ar i fy , the C our texpl ai ned thati thad di s m i s s ed the tre sp a ss c laim b e c a u se th e B o rin g s h a d “ f a iled to a lleg e f

a c ts s u f f icie n t to su p p o rt a pl aus i bl e cl ai m thattheys uffe r ed anydamage as a r es ul tof the tr es pas s ” and be caus e they f a ile d to re q u e s t n o m in a l d a m a g e s in th e irc o m p la in t. I d. , a t * 1 . T he B or i ngs fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l fr om both the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der gr ant i ng the mot i on t o di s m i s s and the s ubs equentdeni al of thei rm ot i on for re c o n s id e ra tio n . I I . D i s cus s i on 3 A . Standar d of

R evi ew W e conduc ta de novo re v ie w o f a R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ) d is m is s a l o f a c o m p la in t. See P hi l l i ps v. C ount

y of A l l egheny , 515 F. 3d 224, 230 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . T he Feder al R ul es of C iv il P ro c e d u re re q u ire th a t a c o m p lain t co n tain “ a sh o rt a n d p lain sta tem e n t o f th e c laim s how i ng thatthe pl eade ri s ent i t l ed t o r el i ef. ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 8 (a )(2 ). T o a v o id d ism iss a l, the compl ai ntm us ts etfor th fac t s thatr ai s e a “ pl aus i bl e i nfer ence ” thatthe def endant in f lic te d a le g a lly c o g n iz a b le h a rm u p o n th e p la in tif f. A s hcr of

tv. I qbal , 129 S. C t . 1937, 1 9 5 2 (2 0 0 9 ); se e a lso B e ll A tla n tic C o rp . v. T w o m b ly , 550 U . S. 544, 556 ( 2007) (e x p lain in g th a t a p lain tiff m u st “ id e n tify [ ] f

a c ts th a t ar e su g g e stiv e e n o u g h to re n d e r [ h is-6-

c laim ] p lau sib le” ); P hi l l i ps , 515 F. 3d at234 ( s t at i ng that“a pl ai nt i ff must‘ nudge [hi s or h e r] c laim s a c ro ss th e lin e f ro m c o n c e iv a b le to p lau sib le’ in o rd e r to su rv iv e a m o tio n to d is m is s ” ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). C o n c lu s o ry a lle g a tio n s o f lia b ility d o n o t s u f

f ic e . See I qbal , 129 S. C t . at1950 ( opi ni ng thatthe fe der al pl eadi ng s t andar d “mar ks a not abl e and g e n e ro u s d e p a rtu re f

ro m th e h yp e r-te c h n ica l, co d e -p lea d in g re g im e o f a p rio r e ra , b u t it does notunl ock the door s of di s coveryfora pl ai nt i ff a r m ed w i th nothi ng m or e than concl us i ons ”) . W e mustdi s r egar d “form ul ai c r eci t at i on of the el ement s of a c aus e of act i on . . . . ” T

w o m b ly , 5 5 0 U .S . a t 5 5 5 . A courtconfr ont ed w i th a R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on m us tacc eptthe truth of al l fac tual al l egat i ons i n t he compl ai ntand mustdr aw al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n favorof the n o n -m o v a n t. G r os s v. G er m an Found. I ndus . I ni t i at i ve , 5 4 9 F . 3 d 6 0 5 , 6 1 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). L e g a l co n c lu sio n s re c e iv e n o su c h d e f e re n c e , an d th e c o u rt is “ n o t b o u n d to acc eptas true a l egal concl us i on couche d as a fa ctual al l egat i on. ” P a p a sa n v . A lla in , 478 U . S . 2 6 5 , 2 8 6 (18 8 6 ) ( c itedw ith a p p ro v a l in T

w o m b ly , 550 U . S. at555 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ) . A l though a pl ai nt i ff mayus e l egal concl us i ons t o pr ovi de the s tructur e fort he compl ai nt , the pl eadi ng’ s fac tual cont entm us ti ndepende nt l y“perm i tthe courtt o i nfer m or e than the mer e pos s i bi l i tyof m i s conduct . ” I qbal , 129 S. C t . at1950. I n s hor t , w hen the w el l - pl eade d compl ai ntdoes notperm i tus “t o i nferm or e than the mer e pos s i bi l i t yof m is c o n d u c t,” th e p le a d e r i s n o t e n title d to re lie f. Fow l erv. U PM CShadys i de , 578 F. 3d 203, 211 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng I qbal , 1 2 9 S . C t. at 19 4 9 ).-7-

O n a p p e a l, th e B o rin g s c o n ten d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in d ism iss in g th e ir i nvas i on of pr i vacy , tr es pas s , unj us tenr i chment , and puni t i ve damages cl ai m s , as w el l as thei rr eques tfori nj unct i ve r el i ef. W e addr es s eac h cl ai m i n turn. B . I nvas i on of

P r i vacy P e n n sy lv a n ia la w re c o g n ize s f o u r to rts u n d e r th e u m b re lla o f in v a sio n o f

p riv a c y : “ [ 1 ] un rea so n ab le i n tru sion u p o n the s ec lusion o f a n o ther; [2 ] ap p rop ri ati o n o f a n o ther’s name orl i kenes s ; [3] unr eas onabl e publ i ci tygi ven t o another ’ s pr i vat e l i fe; and [4] publ i ci tythatunr eas onabl ypl ace s the otheri n a fa l s e l i ghtbefor e the publ i c. ” See Burge r v. B lai rMed. A s s ocs . , I nc. , 964 A . 2d 374, 376- 77 ( Pa. 2009) ( ci t i ng R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) OF T ORTS §§ 65 2B -E (197 7)) . T he D i stri ctC ou rttreat ed the B ori ng s’ c o m p lain t as a ss e rtin g c laim s f o r b o th in tru sio n u p o n se c lu sio n a n d p u b licityto p riv a te l i fe, and i thel d t hatthe compl ai ntfai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m forei ther , focus i ng on the l ack of fac t s i n the compl ai ntt o s uppor ta conc l us i on thatthe Str eetV i ew i m ages w oul d be hi ghl yoffe ns i ve t o a r eas onabl e per s on. T he B or i ngs cont end thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tw as w r ong t o deci de, on a 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on t o di s m i s s , that“a r eas onabl e per s on w oul d notbe h ig h lyo f f e n d e d ” a f

ter h a v in g d isc o v e re d , as th e B o rin g s d id , tha t so m e o n e “ e n ter e d o n to s ecl uded pr i vat e pr operty[and] t ook 360 [degr ee] pi ctur es ... . ” ( A ppel l ant s ’ O p B r . at 1 9 . )-8- i . I ntr us i on upon Seclus i on T o s t at e a c l ai m fori ntrus i on upon s ecl us i on, pl ai nt i ffs m us tal l ege c onduct demonstr at i ng “an i nt ent i onal i ntrus i on upon the s ecl us i on of thei rpr i vat e conc erns w hi ch w a s s u b sta n tial a n d h ig h lyo f f e n siv e to a re a so n a b le p e rso n , an d a v e r su f f icie n t f a c ts to es t abl i s h thatthe i nform at i on di s cl os ed w oul d have c aus ed ment al s uffe r i ng, s hame or hum i l i at i on t o a per s on of or di narys ens i bi l i t i es . ” P r o G ol f M f g. , I nc. v. Tri bune Revi ew N ew s paperC o. , 809 A . 2d 243, 247 ( Pa. 2002) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . Publ i cat i on i s notan e le m e n t o f

th e c la im , a n d th u s w e m u s t e x a m in e th e h a rm c a u s e d b yth e in tru s io n its e lf. See Bors e v. P i ece G oods Shop, I nc. , 9 6 3 F .2 d 6 1 1 , 6 2 1 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). N o per s on of or di narys ens i bi l i t i es w oul d be s hamed, hum i l i at ed, orhave s uffe r ed m ent al l yas a r es ul tof a ve hi cl e ent er i ng i nt o hi s orherungat ed dr i vew ayand phot ogr aphi ng the vi ew fr om ther e. T he R es t at ementci t es knocki ng on the doorof a pr i vat e r es i dence as an exa m pl e of c onductthatw oul d notbe hi ghl yoffe ns i ve t o a per s on o f o rd in a ry se n s ib iliti e s . See R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) OF T OR TS , § 652B cmt . d. T he B or i ngs ’ cl ai m i s pi nned t o an ar guabl yl es s i ntrus i ve eve ntthan a doorknock. I ndeed, the pr i vacyal l egedl yi ntruded upon w as the ext ernal vi ew of the B or i ngs ’ hous e, gar age, a n d p o o l – a v i e w th a tw o u l d b e s e e n b y a n y p e r s o n w h o e n t e r e d o n t o th e i rd r i v e w a y, i ncl udi ng a vi s i t orora del i verym an. T hus , w hatr eal l ys eems t o be atthe hea r tof the compl ai nti s notG oogl e’ s fl eet i ng pr es ence i n the dr i vew ay , butthe phot ogr aphi c i m ageT hough notpert i nentt o ourdeci s i on, w e not e G oogl e’ s as s ert i on, w hi ch i s not 4 s er i ous l ycont es t ed bythe B or i ngs , thatthe Str eetV i ew phot ogr aph i s s i m i l art o a vi ew of the B o ri n g s’ ho u se th at w as o n ce p u b li clyav ail ab le on li n e thro u g h the C o u n tyA sses so r’s w ebs i t e. -9- captur ed atthatt i m e. T he exi s t ence of thati m age, though, does noti n i t s el f r i s e t o the l evel of an i ntrus i on thatcoul d r eas onabl ybe ca l l ed hi ghl yoffe ns i ve. 4 Si gni fi cant l y , the B or i ngs do notal l ege thattheythemsel ves w er e vi ew ed i ns i de th e irh o m e , w h ic h is a re le v a n t f a c to r i n a n a lyzi n g in tru s io n u p o n s e c lu s io n c la im s . See, e. g. , P acit t iv. D urr , C i v. A . N o. 05- 317, 2008 W L 793875, at*26 ( W . D . Pa. M ar . 24, 2 0 0 8 ) (h o ld in g th a t n o re a so n a b le p e rso n w o u ld f in d th e f a c t th a t d e f

e n d a n t en ter e d in to pl ai nt i ff’ s condomi ni um t o s peak w i th a thi r d partyhi ghl yoffe ns i ve bec aus e pl ai nt i ff w as n o t in th e c o n d o m in iu m a t th e tim e ), a ff'd , 3 1 0 F . A p p ’x 5 2 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); G TE Mobi lnet of S. Texas Ltd. P '

s hi p v. P as couet , 61 S. W . 3d 599, 618 ( T ex. A pp. 2001) ( fi ndi ng that“the mer e fa ctthatm ai nt enanc e w or ker s . . . l ook[ed] overi nt o the adj oi ni ng y ard is l eg all yinsu ff

ici en t evid en ce o f h igh lyo ff en sive co n d u ct. ”). T he B or i ngs s ugges tthatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n det erm i ni ng w hatw oul d be hi ghl yoffe ns i ve t o a per s on of or di narys ens i bi l i t i es atthe pl eadi ng s t age, buttheydo not ci t e t o anyauthor i tyforthi s pr opos i t i on. C our t s do i n fac t , deci de the “hi ghl yoffe ns i ve” is s u e a s a m a tte r o f

la w a t th e p le a d in g s ta g e w h e n a p p ro p ri a te . See, e. g. , D i azv . D . L. R ecov er y C or p. , 4 8 6 F . S u p p . 2 d 4 7 4 , 4 7 5 -48 0 (E . D . P a. 20 0 7 ) (de n y ing d ef en d an t’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s as t o pl ai nt i ff’ s i nvas i on of pr i vacycl ai m beca us e al l egat i ons thatdebtG o o g l e s p e n d s m u c h t i m e a r g u i n g th a tth e B o r i n g s ’ d r i v e w a y w a s n o ta c tu a l l y a 5 pr i vat e pl ace s uffi ci entt o s us t ai n an i nvas i on of pr i vacycl ai m . I tnot es thatnum er ous court s have f

ound no i ntrus i on upon s ecl us i on bas ed upon a vi ew thatcan be s een f r om the o u tsi d e o f th e h o m e, an d p o ints t o the f ac t th at i m ag es o f th e B o ri n g s’ ho m e w ere a lre a d ya v a ilab le o n th e In ter n e t. B e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e a lleg e d c o n d u c t w o u ld notbe hi ghl yoffe ns i ve t o a per s on of or di narys ens i bi l i t i es , w e nee d notdeci de w hether th e Bo r i n g s ’ d r i v e wa ywa s a “ p r i v a t e p l a c e ” f o rp u rp o s e s o f

a n i n v a s i o n o f

p r i v a c yc l a i m. -10- c o llec to r c a lled d e b to r a t h e r h o m e sta tin g h e w o u ld “ re p o ss e ss a ll o f h e r h o u se h o ld belongings and even her car” s t at ed a clai m for i nv asi on of p ri vacy ). T he B ori ng s al so su g g est th at th e C o u rterred in ex p ressing sk ep ti cism ab o u t w h ethe r th e B o ri n g s w ere actual l yoffe nded byG oogl e’ s conducti n l i ghtof the B or i ngs ’ publ i c fi l i ng of the pr es ent l aw s ui t . H ow ever , the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s comm ent s came aft erthe C our thad al r eady co n clud ed that G o o g le’s co n d u ct w o u ld n o t be h igh lyo ff en sive to a p erso n o f o rdin ary s ens i bi l i t i es . T hus , the C our tpr oper l yappl i ed an obj ect i ve s t andar d i n deci di ng w hether the conduc tw as hi ghl yoffe ns i ve. 5 I n s um , acc ept i ng the B or i ngs ’ al l egat i ons as true, thei rcl ai m fori ntrus i on upon se c lu sio n f

a ils a s a m a tter o f

law , b e c a u se th e a lleg e d c o n d u c t w o u ld n o t b e h ig h ly o f f e n s iv e to a p e rs o n o f

o rd in a ry se n s ib iliti e s . ii. P u b licity G ive n to P riv a te L ife T o s t at e a c l ai m forpubl i ci tygi ven t o pr i vat e l i fe, a pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege thatt he m a tter p u b liciz e d is “ (1 ) p u b licity , g iv e n to (2 ) p riv a te f a c ts, (3 ) w h ich w o u ld b e h ig h ly offe ns i ve t o a r eas onabl e per s on, and ( 4) i s notof l egi t i m at e conc ern t o the publ i c. ” H ar r is by H

ar r is v. E as t er n P ub. C o. , 483 A . 2d 1377, 1384 ( Pa. Super . C t . 1984) ( ci t i ngW e not e, how ever , thatthe fa ct s r evea l ed maynotactual l ybe “pr i vat e fa ct s , ” as 6 re q u ire d b yp ro n g 2 , b e c a u se th e B o rin g s’ p ro p e rtya lleg e d lyis o r re c e n tlyw a s a v a ilab le to p u b lic v ie w b yv ir tu e o f ta x re c o rd s a n d m a p s o n o th e r I n te rn e t s ite s . See Str i ckland v. U ni v. of Scr ant on , 700 A . 2d 979, 987 ( Pa. Super . C t . 1997) ( expl ai ni ng that“a mat t er w h ich w as o f p u b li c re co rd [ w as] n o t a priva te fa ct”). -11- R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) OF T ORTS § 652D ) . Forthe r eas ons j us tdes cr i bed w i th r es pect t o the i ntrus i on upon s ecl us i on cl ai m , w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatthe B or i ngs h a v e f a iled to a lleg e f

a c ts s u f f icie n t to e sta b lish th e th ird e lem e n t o f a p u b licityto p riv a te life c laim , i. e ., th a t th e p u b licityw o u ld b e h ig h lyo f f e n siv e to a re a so n a b le p e rso n . It i s therefore un necessaryt o ad dress the o ther three prong s. 6 In c o n c lu sio n , ac c e p tin g th e B o rin g s’ a lleg a tio n s a s tru e , the ir c laim f o r p u b licity gi ven t o pr i vat e l i fe f

ai l s as a mat t erof l aw , beca us e the al l eged c onductw oul d notbe h ig h ly o f f e n s iv e to a p e rs o n o f

o rd in a ry se n s ib iliti e s . C . T respass T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the B or i ngs ’ tr es pas s cl ai m , hol di ng thattr es pas s w as n o t th e p ro x im a te c a u se o f a n yc o m p e n sa to ryd a m a g e s s o u g h t in th e c o m p lain t an d th a t, w hi l e nomi nal damages ar e gene r al l yavai l abl e i n a tr es pas s cl ai m , the B or i ngs di d not seek no m i nal dam ages i n thei r com plai nt. W hil e t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s evidentskepti ci sm aboutthe cl ai m m aybe under s t andabl e, i t s deci s i on t o di s m i s s i tunderR ul e 12( b) ( 6) w as err on eou s. T re sp a ss is a stric t li a b ili tyto rt, “b o th e x c e p tio n a llysim p le a n d e x c e p tio n a lly r i gor ous . ” P rosseron T ort s a t 6 3 (W e st, 4 th e d . 1 9 7 1 ). U n d e r P e n n sy lv a n ia la w , itisT he D i s tr i ctC our tci t ed t o a s i ngl e ca s e fr om 1899 t o s uppor ti t s cl ai m thatpl ai nt i ffs 7 i n a tr es pas s cas e ar e r equi r ed t o pl ead nomi nal damages . H ow ever , the ca s e i tci t ed w as no ta t res pass case . Se e Mo rr is & Ess ex Mu t. C o a l C o . v. D e l. , L. & W . R . C o. , 42 A . 883, 8 8 4 (P a . 1 8 9 9 ). I n f

a c t, th a t c a s e is e x p re s s ly in a p p lic a b le to th is c a s e . See i d. ( “The w hol e pr ocee di ng w as t o r ecove rdamages bas ed, notupon a w r ongful i nvas i on of pl ai nt i ff’ s [pr operty ] r i ght s , butupon an ac tof as s embl yw hi ch author i zed the t aki ng of the p roperty . ”). S i m i l arl y , no ne o f t he cases ci t ed b yG oo gle i n it s bri ef are tres pass cases. In fact , G oo gle i t sel f i nd i cat es the p ossi bil i tythat w e m ayhav e t o rem and the case t o p r o c e e d wi th a n o mi n a l d a ma g e s tr e s p a s s c l a i m. W h i l e i tma yb e tru e th a tf o rs o me c laim s, th e f

a ilu re to se e k n o m in a l d a m a g e s w a iv e s a c laim f o r n o m in a l d a m a g e s, th a t is -12- defi ned as an “unpr i vi l eged, i nt ent i onal i ntrus i on upon l and i n pos s es s i on of another . ” G r aham O i lC o. v. B P O i lC o. , 885 F. Supp. 716, 725 ( W . D . Pa. 1994) ( ci t i ng Kopka v. B el lTel . C o. , 9 1 A .2 d 2 3 2 , 2 3 5 (P a . 1 9 5 2 )). T h o u g h c laim in g n o t to h a v e d o n e so , it appea r s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our teff ect i vel ym ade da m ages an el ementof the cl ai m , and that is p ro b lem a tic, sin c e “ [ o ]n e w h o in ten tio n a llye n ter s la n d in th e p o ss e ss io n o f a n o th e r is s ubj ectt o l i abi l i tyt o t he pos s es s orfora tr es pas s , al though hi s pr es ence on the l and ca us es no harm t o t he l and, i t s pos s es s or , ort o anythi ng orper s on i n w hos e s ecur i tythe p o s s e s s o r h a s a le g a lly p ro te c te d in te re s t.” R ES TAT EMEN T (S EC ON D ) T ORTS § 1 6 3 ; s ee als o C or r . Med. C ar e, I nc. v. G r ay , C i v. A . N o. 07- 2840, 2008 W L 248977, *11 ( E . D . Pa. Jan. 30 , 20 08 ) ( ho l ding t hat a com plai nt al l eging t hat defend ants enter ed int o p l ai nti ffs’ hom e on s peci fi ed dat es w as “s uffi ci entt o s ur vi ve a mot i on t o di s m i s s under P e n n s y lv a n ia tr e s p a s s la w .” ). H er e, the B or i ngs have a l l eged thatG oogl e ent er ed upon thei rpr opertyw i thout p e rm iss io n . If

p ro v e n , tha t is a tre sp a ss , p u re a n d sim p le. T h e re is n o re q u ire m e n t in P e n n sy lv a n ia la w th a t d a m a g e s b e p led , eith e r n o m in a l o r c o n se q u e n tial. C f. 1 S TEIN O N 7n o t th e c a s e w ith tr e s p a s s c la im s .

W e i m pl ynothi ng aboutw hetherthe cl ai m w oul d s ur vi ve s um m aryj udgm ent , ei ther 8 as t o l i abi l i tyordamages , oraboutthe l i m i t s on pr oof thatm aybe appr opr i at e. -13- P E R S O N A L I NJURY D AMAGES § 1. 3 ( 3d ed. 2009) ( “harm i s nota pr er equi s i t e t o a ca us e of act i on [fortr es pas s , ] and nomi nal damages can be aw ar ded [e ven though] ther e has been and w i l l be no s ubs t ant i al harm . ”) ; 75 A M . J UR . 2 D T respass § 112 ( 2009) ( “[I ] n the abs ence of pr oven oractual damages , pl ai nt i ffs ar e ent i t l ed t o nom i nal damages i n an a c tio n f o r t re s p a s s .” (c ita tio n s o m itte d )) . It w a s th u s im p ro p e r f o r th e D istric t C o u rt to d ism iss th e tre sp a ss c laim f o r f a ilu re to sta te a c laim . O f c o u rse , itm a yw e ll b e th a t, w h e n it co m e s to p ro v in g d a m a g e s f ro m th e a lleg e d tre sp a ss , the B o rin g s a re lef t to col l ectone dol l arand w hat evers ens e of vi ndi cat i on thatm aybr i ng, butthati s foranother day . F or now , i ti s enou gh t o n ote that they“bear the b urden o f prov i ng that the tr espass 8 w as the l egal caus e, i . e. , a s ubs t ant i al fac t ori n br i ngi ng aboutactual harm ordamage” C & K C o a lCo . v . Un i t e d Mi n e Wo rke rs o

f A m. , 5 3 7 F . S u p p . 4 8 0 , 5 1 1 (W . D . P a. 19 8 2 ), r e v ’din p a r t o n o th e rg r o u n d s , 704 F. 2d 690, 699 ( 3d C i r . 1983) , i f theyw antm or e than a d o lla r. D . U nj us tE nr i chm ent T o s ucce ed on a c l ai m of unj us tenr i chment , a pl ai nt i ff mustal l ege f act s s uffi ci ent t o es t abl i s h “bene fi t s confe r r ed on def endantbypl ai nt i ff, appr eci at i on of s uch bene fi t s by d e f e n d a n t, an d a c c e p tan c e a n d re ten tio n o f su c h b e n e f

its u n d e r su c h c irc u m sta n c e s th a t it w o u ld b e in e q u ita b le f

o r d e f e n d a n t to re ta in th e b e n e f it w ith o u t p a ym e n t o f

v a lu e .”-14-

Lacknerv. G l os s er , 8 9 2 A . 2 d 2 1 , 3 4 ( P a . S u p e r . C t . 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) . T yp i c a l l y, w ith a n u n

ju st e n ric h m e n t cla im , a “ p lain tiff se e k s to re c o v e r f

ro m d e f e n d a n t f o r a b e n e f

it con ferr ed u nd er an un con sum m at ed o r voi d co ntact , ” and the law then i m pli es a quas i - contr actw hi ch r equi r es the def endantt o compensa t e the pl ai nt i ff f orthe val ue of th e b e n e f

it c o n f e rr e d . S e e S tea m

fit ters L o c a l U

n io n N o . 4 2 0 W e lfa re Fu n d

v . P h ill ip Mor r is , I nc. , 1 7 1 F .3 d 9 1 2 , 9 3 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ); Hers hey Foods Corp. v. R al ph C hapek, I

nc. , 8 2 8 F . 2 d 9 8 9 , 9 9 8 -99 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 7 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the B or i ngs ’ unj us tenr i chmentcl ai m aft erfi ndi ng thattheyhad notal l eged a nyr el at i ons hi p betw een themsel ves and G oogl e thatcoul d be cons trued as contr actual , and bec aus e “i tcannotbe fa i r l ys ai d thatthe B or i ngs confe r r ed anythi ng of val ue upon G oogl e. ” ( A pp. atA 12- A 13. ) T he C our tfur therhel d thatthe unj us tenr i chmentcl ai m fai l ed bec aus e the B or i ngs had notadequa t el yal l eged a nyot her to rt , a n d P e n n s y lv a n ia d o e s n o t r e c o g n iz e u n ju s t e n ri c h m e n t a s a s ta n d -a lo n e to rt . W e agree t hat the fa ct s al l eged bythe B ori ng s provi de n o b asi s for an un j ust enr i chmentcl ai m agai ns tG oogl e. T he compl ai ntnotonl yfai l s t o al l ege a voi d or uncons um m at ed contr act , i tdoes notal l ege a nybenef i tconfe rr ed upon G oogl e bythe B or i ngs , l etal one a be nefi tforw hi ch the B or i ngs coul d r eas onabl yexpec tt o be compensa t ed. T he compl ai ntal l eges thatG oogl e comm i t t ed var i ous t or t s w hen i tt ook phot ogr aphs of the B or i ngs ’ pr opertyw i thoutthei rcons ent . T he compl ai ntdoes not al l ege, how ever , thatthe B or i ngs gave orthatG oogl e t ook anythi ng thatw oul d enr i chB ecause w e fi nd that the B ori ng s st at ed a clai m for tres pass ( see supra , S e c tio n II.C .ii ) 9 and thu s survived a 1 2(b)( 6) m oti on t o d i sm i ss as t o thatcl ai m , w e need no tadd res s w h e th e r u n

ju st e n ric h m e n t is a sta n d -a lo n e to rt u n d e r P e n n sy lv a n ia la w . In ste a d , w e h o ld thatthe B or i ngs have f

ai l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m forunj us tenr i chment , r egar dl es s of w hether i ti s a s t and- al one t or t , beca us e theyhave f ai l ed t o al l ege f

act s s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h a benef i tconfe r r ed upon G oogl e bythe B or i ngs . T hus , on r emand, the B or i ngs ar e not e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e ru n d e rth e i ru n j u s te n r i c h me n tc l a i m.

-15- G oogl e atthe B or i ngs ’ expens e. A n unj us tenr i chment“cl ai m m akes s ens e i n cas es i nvol vi ng a contr actora quas i - contr act , butnot , as her e, w her e pl ai nt i ffs ar e cl ai m i ng d a m a g e s f

o r t o rt s c o m m itte d a g a in s t th e m b y[ th e ] d e f e n d a n t[ ].” R omy v. B urke , N o.

9 1 2 3 6 , 2 0 0 3 W L 2 1 2 0 5 9 7 5 , at *5 (P a. C o m . P l. P h il ad elph ia M ay2 , 2 0 0 3 ). E . I nj unct i ve Rel i ef P e n n s y lv a n ia la w p ro v id e s th a t in o rd e r t o e s ta b lis h th e ri g h t to in ju n c tiv e re lie f

, a p lain tiff m u st “ e sta b lish th a t h is rig h t to re lief is c lea r, th a t an in

ju n c tio n is n e c e ss a ryto a v o id a n in

ju ryth a t ca n n o t b e c o m p e n sa ted b yd a m a g e s, a n d th a t g re a ter in ju ryw ill re su lt fr om r efus i ng r atherthan gr ant i ng the r el i ef r eques t ed. ” Kuz ni k v . W e stm o re la n d

C o u n ty B d. of C om m ’r

s , 902 A . 2d 476, 489 ( Pa. 2006) ( ci t i ng H ar di ng v. St i ckm an , 823 A . 2d 1 1 1 0 , 1 1 1 1 (P a . C o m m w . C t. 2 0 0 3 )) . A n in ju n c tio n is a n e x tr a o rd in a ry re m e d y . See A m br ogiv. R eber , 9 3 2 A .2 d 9 6 9 , 9 7 4 (P a . S u p e r. C t. 2 0 0 7 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our thel d t hatthe compl ai ntfai l ed t o s etoutfac t s s uppor t i ng a pl aus i bl e cl ai m of ent i t l ementt o i nj unct i ve r el i ef. W e agr ee thatthe B or i ngs have not al l eged a nycl ai m w arr ant i ng i nj unct i ve r el i ef. T he compl ai ntcl ai m s nothi ng m or e than a s i ngl e, br i ef e ntr ybyG oogl e ont o t he B or i ngs ’ pr operty . I m por t ant l y , the B or i ngs do not-16-

al l ege a nyfac t s t o s ugges ti nj uryr es ul t i ng fr om G oogl e’ s r et ent i on of the phot ogr aphs at i s s ue, w hi ch i s uns urpr i s i ng s i nce w e ar e t ol d thatthe al l egedl yoffe ndi ng i m ages have lo n g s in c e b e e n re m o v e d f ro m th e S tr e e t V ie w p ro g ra m . F . P uni t i ve D am ages Penns y l vani a l aw pr ovi des thata def endantm us thave e ngaged i n “outr ageous ” or

“ in te n tio n a l, r e c k le s s o r m a lic io u s ” c o n d u c t to s u s ta in a c la im f o r p u n itiv e d a m a g e s . Fe ld v. Mer r i am , 485 A . 2d 742, 747- 48 ( Pa. 1984) . I ndeed, “puni t i ve damages cannotbe bas ed upon or di narynegl i gence . ” H ut chi ns on ex r el . H

ut chi ns on v. Luddy , 946 A . 2d 744, 7 4 7 (P a. S u p er. C t. 2 0 0 8 ). T h e B o rr in g s ’ c o m p la in t f a ils to a lle g e c o n d u c t th a t is o u tr a g e o u s o r m a lic io u s . T her e i s no al l egat i on thatG oogl e i nt ent i onal l ys enti t s dr i veront o thei rpr opertyorthat G o o g le w as e v en aw are that it s d ri v er h ad en tered o n to the p rop erty . M o reo v er, th ere are n o f a c ts s u g g e stin g th a t G o o g le a c ted m a licio u slyo r re c k les slyo r th a t G o o g le i ntent i on al l ydis regar ded the B ori ng s’ ri gh t s. T he B or i ngs ar gue thata cl ai m forpuni t i ve damages m us tal w ay s be det erm i ned b ya ju ry , af

ter d isc o v e ry . B u t co u rts d o in d e e d d ism iss c laim s f o r p u n iti v e d a m a g e s in a d v a n c e o f

tr ia l. See P hil l i

ps v. C ri cketL igh t ers , 883 A . 2d 439, 445, 447 ( Pa. 2005) ( r ever s i ng a deni al of s um m aryj udgm entas t o a puni t i ve damages cl ai m beca us e “[ a] s how i ng of m er e negl i gence , oreven gr os s negl i gence , w i l l nots uffi ce t o es t abl i s h that p u n iti v e d a m a g e s s h o u ld b e im p o se d ” ); Fe ld , 485 A . 2d at748 ( hol di ng thats ubm i s s i on ofA ppel l ant s r el yon t w o cas es t o ar gue thatpuni t i ve damages m us tal w ay s be 10 d e ter m in e d b ya ju rya f

ter d isc o v e ry : K i rkbr i de v. Li bs on C ontr actors , I nc. , 555 A . 2d 800 ( Pa. 1989) , and Jacque v. St eenbe r g H om es , I nc. , 5 6 3 N .W . 2 d 1 5 4 (W is . 1 9 9 7 ). K i rkbr i de a d d re ss e d w h e th e r a p u n iti v e d a m a g e s a w a rd m u st b e a r a re a so n a b le rel at i on shi p to the co m pen sat oryaw ard, rather than add res si ng w hat ki nd of co nd uct m ust b e a lle g e d in o rd e r t o s u rv iv e a 1 2 (b )( 6 ) m o tio n to d is m is s o n a p u n itiv e d a m a g e s c la im . 555 A . 2d at801. T he Jacque cas e, i n addi t i on t o havi ng no bi ndi ng author i tyon our C our t , addr es s ed w hethera puni t i ve damages cl ai m m aybe aw ar ded i n connec t i on w i th a tr es pas s cl ai m , w her e nomi nal damages had bee n aw ar ded and the tr es pas s w as comm i t t ed “f

oran outr ageous purpos e butno s i gni fi cantharm r es ul t ed. ” 563 N . W . 2d at 1 6 1 . T h u s, th a t co u rt d id n o t h o ld th a t th e iss u e o f p u n iti v e d a m a g e s m u st a lw a y s g o to th e ju ry. -17- p u n it ive d am ag es issu e to ju ryw as e rror). A n d , u n d er the p lead ing stan d ard s w e a re 10 bound t o appl y , ther e i s s i m pl yno foundat i on i n the compl ai ntfora demand forpuni t i ve d a m a g e s . C

f . I qbal , 129 S. C t . at1950 ( expl ai ni ng thatw hi l e a pl ai nt i ff mayus e l egal con cl usi on s t o p rovi de the structure for the co m plai nt, the p l eading’s factual cont ent m ust ind ep en d en tl y“p erm itthe c o u rtto inf er m o re tha n the m ere p o ssibil ityo f m isco n d u ct”); T w o m b ly , 5 5 0 U . S . at 55 6 (ex p lai n ing that a p lai n ti ff m u st “i d en ti fy [] f

ac ts th at are su g g esti v e e n o u g h to ren d er [ h is cl aim ] plau sible”). I I I . C oncl usi on F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s gra n t of G o o g le’s m o tio n to d ism iss th e B o rin g s’ c laim s f o r in v a sio n o f

p riv a c y , u n

ju st e n ric h m e n t, i njunct i ve rel i ef, and pu nit i ve d am ages. W e revers e, ho w ever, w i th respectt o the tres pass cl ai m , and r emand w i th i ns truct i ons thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tperm i tthatcl ai m t o go forw ar d.