Ashley Popa sued Harriet Carter Gifts, Inc. and NaviStone, Inc. alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. The defendants removed the case from state court to federal district court, where the court granted summary judgment in their favor. Popa appealed, but while her appeal was pending, the Third Circuit decided Cook v. GameStop, Inc., a case establishing that mere mouse clicks and typing without inputting sensitive personal information do not create a concrete injury-in-fact. Popa conceded that under this new precedent, she did not suffer a cognizable Article III harm. The defendants argued that the court should not revisit the jurisdictional question based on prior rulings in the case, but the Third Circuit determined that Article III jurisdiction is a constitutional limit that cannot be waived by the parties or overridden by the law-of-the-case doctrine.
The court began by addressing the threshold issue of Article III standing. Relying on its recent decision in Cook v. GameStop, Inc., the court concluded that Popa's alleged conduct did not result in a sufficiently concrete injury-in-fact. The court noted that without a case or controversy, it would exceed its constitutional power under Article III, Section 2 to reach the merits of the appeal. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the law-of-the-case doctrine precluded a re-examination of jurisdiction. Citing Messenger v. Anderson, the court explained that the law-of-the-case doctrine is not a limit on the court's power, whereas Article III is. The court emphasized that a determination of no standing does not extinguish a removed state court case, but it does require the federal court to step aside. Consequently, the court found it had a duty to apply the supervening rule of law regarding standing, even if it meant vacating a previous procedural posture.
The decision effectively dismisses the federal lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction, sending the case back to state court where it originally began. This reinforces the Third Circuit's strict application of the GameStop precedent, limiting the ability of plaintiffs to pursue certain wiretapping claims in federal court if they cannot demonstrate a concrete injury beyond mere technical violations. The case remains pending in state court, but the federal avenue for relief has been closed for this specific factual scenario.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download