Heritage Pacific Financial v. Shelton Investigations, No. ____ (E.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2009)
STATUS: Pending
After defendant Shelton Investigations authored a post on complaintsboard.com accusing Heritage Pacific of not paying it for work it did for them, Heritage Pacific (a collections business) brought suit against Shelton Investigations and the owner of complaintsboard.com, Elizabeth Arden. Plaintiffs alleged defamation, libel, libel per se, and slander. On Dec. 14, a magistrate judge denied plaintiff's request for a preliminary injuction, noting that the plaintiff had not yet offered sufficient evidence that the court has personal jurisdiction over defendants, or that they had a likelihood of success on the merits. 2009 WL 4983810.
As of Feb. 8, 2010, the offensive post was still on the site.
Links and court documents
Texas financial company sues after negative comments on Web site, The Southeast Texas Record, Nov. 24, 2009
Showing posts with label Business Entity / Corporation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Business Entity / Corporation. Show all posts
Horizon Group Management v. Bonnen, No. 2009L008675 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County filed July 20, 2009).
Horizon Group Management v. Bonnen, No. 2009L008675 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County filed July 20, 2009).
Status: Dismissed.Horizon Group Management, which owns the apartment that defendant Amanda Bonnen rents, sued her for a Tweet she sent to a friend (but publicly available on her Twitter feed), apparently about plans for the friend to stay at her apartment.
"You should just come anyway," the Tweet said. "Who said sleeping in moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks its okay."
Update: On Jan. 20th, the Cook County Circuit Court judge dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that the Tweet could have been innocently construed to reflect the plaintiff's opinion.
Links and Court Documents:Rounding Up the Buzz... Will one Chicago woman's Tweet cost her $50,000?, Chicago Bar-Tender, July 27, 2009
Complaint at http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-bar-tender/Twitter%20lawsuit.pdf
Twitter apartment mold suit dismissed, Chicago Breaking News, Jan. 21, 2010
Judge tosses Twitter libel suit, WBBM 780, Jan. 22, 2010
Court's order dismissing suit, filed Jan. 20, 2010
Status: Dismissed.Horizon Group Management, which owns the apartment that defendant Amanda Bonnen rents, sued her for a Tweet she sent to a friend (but publicly available on her Twitter feed), apparently about plans for the friend to stay at her apartment.
"You should just come anyway," the Tweet said. "Who said sleeping in moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks its okay."
Update: On Jan. 20th, the Cook County Circuit Court judge dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that the Tweet could have been innocently construed to reflect the plaintiff's opinion.
Links and Court Documents:Rounding Up the Buzz... Will one Chicago woman's Tweet cost her $50,000?, Chicago Bar-Tender, July 27, 2009
Complaint at http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-bar-tender/Twitter%20lawsuit.pdf
Twitter apartment mold suit dismissed, Chicago Breaking News, Jan. 21, 2010
Judge tosses Twitter libel suit, WBBM 780, Jan. 22, 2010
Court's order dismissing suit, filed Jan. 20, 2010
Apex Tech. Group, Inc. v. John Doe(s) 1-10, No. MID-L-7879-09 (N.J. Super. Ct., filed Dec. 23, 2009)
Status: Pending
A staffing and consulting services company ("Apex") brought suit against three websites -- http://www.endh1b.com/, http://www.itgrunt.com/, http://www.guestworkerfraud.com/ -- that allegedly posted defamatory comments about Apex, calling it a "bodyshop" and accusing it of engaging in bad practices while staffing H1-B workers from India. (The H1-B is a visa that allows American employers to use foreign workers in specialty occupations.) After the plaintiff filed an order to show cause, the court ordered Comcast, Yahoo!, and Facebook to turn over all documents relating to the identity of the owners of the websites. The court also enjoined the three websites, ordering them to remove all postings and references to the plaintiff. Finally, the court ordered discountASP.net, GoDaddy.com, and Domains by Proxy, Inc. to shut down and disable the websites "until further notice of this Court."
Links and court documents:- Order shutting down websites, filed Dec. 23, 2009
- H1B spat unites activities, xenophobes against common enemy, Ars Technica, Dec. 30, 2009
- Order to Shut Down Websites Critical of Apex Technology Group is Dangerous and Wrong, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Jan. 7, 2010
- Get to Work: Court order shuts web sites over H1-B fracas, San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 11, 2010
- Determining the Proper Scope of Prior Restraints against Blogs in Defamation Cases, JOLT Digest, May 11, 2010
A staffing and consulting services company ("Apex") brought suit against three websites -- http://www.endh1b.com/, http://www.itgrunt.com/, http://www.guestworkerfraud.com/ -- that allegedly posted defamatory comments about Apex, calling it a "bodyshop" and accusing it of engaging in bad practices while staffing H1-B workers from India. (The H1-B is a visa that allows American employers to use foreign workers in specialty occupations.) After the plaintiff filed an order to show cause, the court ordered Comcast, Yahoo!, and Facebook to turn over all documents relating to the identity of the owners of the websites. The court also enjoined the three websites, ordering them to remove all postings and references to the plaintiff. Finally, the court ordered discountASP.net, GoDaddy.com, and Domains by Proxy, Inc. to shut down and disable the websites "until further notice of this Court."
Links and court documents:- Order shutting down websites, filed Dec. 23, 2009
- H1B spat unites activities, xenophobes against common enemy, Ars Technica, Dec. 30, 2009
- Order to Shut Down Websites Critical of Apex Technology Group is Dangerous and Wrong, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Jan. 7, 2010
- Get to Work: Court order shuts web sites over H1-B fracas, San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 11, 2010
- Determining the Proper Scope of Prior Restraints against Blogs in Defamation Cases, JOLT Digest, May 11, 2010
NAPW, Inc. v. Google, No. ___ (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed Dec. __, 2009)
Status: Pending
A national women's group, NAPW, and its president sought an injunction as well as damages arising from misappropriation of their names for trade and advertising purposes, as well as defamation. They brought suit against Google and various Doe defendants because four blogs operated by Google services allegedly defamed the plaintiffs. They sought an injunction to order Google to remove and delete the offending posts "pending resolution through trial," as well as to disclose information for the Doe defendants. The four defamatory posts, as listed in the complaint, are:
- http://knol.google.com/k/national-association-of-professional-women-napw-scam
- ed-tech-axis.blogspot.com/2009/01/national-association-of-professional.html
- lopezhome.blogspot.com
- http://womenworksmart.blogspot.com/2008/08/watch-out-for-scams-attacking-new.html
As of January 6, all offending posts were still available.
Links and court documents:
Bloggers Defamed Women's Group, Says Suit, Courthouse News Service, Dec. 31, 2009
Complaint
See also:
NAPW, Inc. v. East Cooper Entrepreneurial Women
A national women's group, NAPW, and its president sought an injunction as well as damages arising from misappropriation of their names for trade and advertising purposes, as well as defamation. They brought suit against Google and various Doe defendants because four blogs operated by Google services allegedly defamed the plaintiffs. They sought an injunction to order Google to remove and delete the offending posts "pending resolution through trial," as well as to disclose information for the Doe defendants. The four defamatory posts, as listed in the complaint, are:
- http://knol.google.com/k/national-association-of-professional-women-napw-scam
- ed-tech-axis.blogspot.com/2009/01/national-association-of-professional.html
- lopezhome.blogspot.com
- http://womenworksmart.blogspot.com/2008/08/watch-out-for-scams-attacking-new.html
As of January 6, all offending posts were still available.
Links and court documents:
Bloggers Defamed Women's Group, Says Suit, Courthouse News Service, Dec. 31, 2009
Complaint
See also:
NAPW, Inc. v. East Cooper Entrepreneurial Women
NAPW, Inc. v. East Cooper Entrepreneurial Women, No. ____ (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. __, 2009)
Status: Pending
A women's group sought an injunction from New York Supreme Court in order to have an offending blog post removed. The group, NAPW, Inc., claimed that a blog post by a competing organization ECEW, defamed it by calling NAPW a "scam." They also claimed that ECEW's post "attracted further defamatory posts, for which ECEW is liable."
Links and Court Documents
Bloggers Defamed Women's Group, Says Suit, Courthouse News Service, Dec. 31, 2009
Complaint: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/31/NAPW2
See also:
NAPW, Inc. v. Google
A women's group sought an injunction from New York Supreme Court in order to have an offending blog post removed. The group, NAPW, Inc., claimed that a blog post by a competing organization ECEW, defamed it by calling NAPW a "scam." They also claimed that ECEW's post "attracted further defamatory posts, for which ECEW is liable."
Links and Court Documents
Bloggers Defamed Women's Group, Says Suit, Courthouse News Service, Dec. 31, 2009
Complaint: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/31/NAPW2
See also:
NAPW, Inc. v. Google
Siegal v. Kardashian, No. 09-93439 CA 15 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Dec. 29, 2009)
Status: Pending
Dr. Siegal's Cookie Diet website has a page that links to news articles and press mentions of the diet. Several of these links suggested that Kim Kardashian was a fan of the diet. In October 2009, she took it upon herself to Tweet that she thought the diet was "unhealthy" and that the company was lying. On Dec. 25, her lawyers sent the site a cease and desist letter, asking that references to Kardashian be taken down.
Dr. Siegal brought suit Dec. 29, alleging that both the doctor and his company were defamed by the Tweets.
As of Jan. 6, 2010, there are no links on The Cookie Diet site to Kardashian.
Case information and links:
Complaint, filed Dec. 28, 2009
Kim Kardashian Sued for Twitter Defamation, THR, Esq., Jan. 4, 2010
Kim K: I'm Being Used by a Cookie Monster, TMZ.com, Dec. 25, 2009
Siegal v. Kardashian, Citizen Media Law Project,
Dr. Siegal's Cookie Diet website has a page that links to news articles and press mentions of the diet. Several of these links suggested that Kim Kardashian was a fan of the diet. In October 2009, she took it upon herself to Tweet that she thought the diet was "unhealthy" and that the company was lying. On Dec. 25, her lawyers sent the site a cease and desist letter, asking that references to Kardashian be taken down.
Dr. Siegal brought suit Dec. 29, alleging that both the doctor and his company were defamed by the Tweets.
As of Jan. 6, 2010, there are no links on The Cookie Diet site to Kardashian.
Case information and links:
Complaint, filed Dec. 28, 2009
Kim Kardashian Sued for Twitter Defamation, THR, Esq., Jan. 4, 2010
Kim K: I'm Being Used by a Cookie Monster, TMZ.com, Dec. 25, 2009
Siegal v. Kardashian, Citizen Media Law Project,
Save-A-Life Foundation v. Baratz, No. 2007-CH-12022 (
Save-A-Life Foundation, Inc. v. Heimlich et al, No. 1:08-cv-06022 (N.D.
Status: Withdrawn
The Chicago-based foundation Save-A-Life Foundation, which teaches and promotes the use of the “Heimlich maneuver” has sued three critics of the first aid procedure and its creator, Dr. Henry Heimlich. Among the critics named in the suit is Jason Harp, who maintains the “Cincinnati Beacon” blog (www.cincinnatibeacon.com), and Peter Heimlich, Henry Heimlich’s son, who maintains his own website (http://medfraud.info/). The foundation is also seeking an injunction against the critics’ comments. In its amended complaint, the foundation added American Broadcasting Company, WLS-TV in Chicago, and WLS reporter Chuck Goudie as defendants over two WLS-TV stories on the controversy. In January 2009, the case was moved to federal court.
In July 2009, the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the case.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/save-life-foundation-v-baratz
Amended complaint: http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2007-11-15-Save-A-Life%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf
State court docket: https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/FindDock.asp?SearchType=2&Database=3&NCase=&CDate=&PLtype=1&sname=Save-A-Life
Morgan v. Goldman Sachs & Co., No. 09-14110 (S.D. Fla. filed April 13, 2009).
Status: Settled.
On March 26, 2009, investment advisor (and law school graduate) Michael Morgan began the www.goldmansachs666.com blog (also accessible at www.goldmansachs13.com) as "an open forum for facts and discussion about what part Goldman Sachs and their executives played in the current Global Economic Crisis." On April 8, the company sent Morgan a letter claiming that he was violating its trademark and demanding that he stop using the domains. Five days later Morgan sued, seeking a declaratory judgment that his use of the domains did not violated the Goldman Sachs trademark. In July 2009, the parties settled with an agreement that Morgan would put a disclaimer on his sites.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2009/04/goldman-sachs-v-mike-morgan.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/5137489/Goldman-Sachs-hires-law-firm-to-shut-bloggers-site.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/14/mike-morgan-florida-blogg_n_186549.html
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2009/04/gripe-site-blogger-bites-back-at-goldman-sachs.html
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/04/23/media-world-short-seller-not-unloading-anti-goldman-site/
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202432304181&Goldman_Sachs_Backs_Down_in_Legal_Battle_With_Blogger
Complaint: http://www.morganfl.org/assets/mikesblog/GoldmanSachs666_Complaint.PDF
Stipulation and dismissal: http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/files/stipulation-and-dismissal.pdf
Status: Settled.
On March 26, 2009, investment advisor (and law school graduate) Michael Morgan began the www.goldmansachs666.com blog (also accessible at www.goldmansachs13.com) as "an open forum for facts and discussion about what part Goldman Sachs and their executives played in the current Global Economic Crisis." On April 8, the company sent Morgan a letter claiming that he was violating its trademark and demanding that he stop using the domains. Five days later Morgan sued, seeking a declaratory judgment that his use of the domains did not violated the Goldman Sachs trademark. In July 2009, the parties settled with an agreement that Morgan would put a disclaimer on his sites.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2009/04/goldman-sachs-v-mike-morgan.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/5137489/Goldman-Sachs-hires-law-firm-to-shut-bloggers-site.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/14/mike-morgan-florida-blogg_n_186549.html
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2009/04/gripe-site-blogger-bites-back-at-goldman-sachs.html
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/04/23/media-world-short-seller-not-unloading-anti-goldman-site/
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202432304181&Goldman_Sachs_Backs_Down_in_Legal_Battle_With_Blogger
Complaint: http://www.morganfl.org/assets/mikesblog/GoldmanSachs666_Complaint.PDF
Stipulation and dismissal: http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/files/stipulation-and-dismissal.pdf
Matteo v. Rubin, No. 07-CV-2536 (N.D. Ill.
Status: Settled
In 2006, Melanie Rubin hired Steven Matteo to photograph her wedding. After the event, Matteo gave Rubin unedited copies of all 1,500 digital pictures that he took. Howard Rubin, the father of the bride, then contacted Matteo with complaints about the quality of the photographs. Matteo attempted to contact Melanie Rubin about the complaints, but he never received a response. In January 2007, Howard Rubin began creating various websites, entitled “Why Not to Hire an Inept Photographer,” which showed several of the wedding photographs and criticized Matteo’s work. Matteo sued for copyright infringement, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, interference with prospective business advantage. On Dec. 3, 2007, the court denied Rubin’s motion to dismiss these claims. (Matteo v. Rubin, 2007 WL 4294734 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 3, 2007). On April 8, the suit was dismissed pursuant to a settlement.
Links and Court Documents:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-ilndce/case_no-1:2007cv02536/case_id-208708/
Status: Settled
In 2006, Melanie Rubin hired Steven Matteo to photograph her wedding. After the event, Matteo gave Rubin unedited copies of all 1,500 digital pictures that he took. Howard Rubin, the father of the bride, then contacted Matteo with complaints about the quality of the photographs. Matteo attempted to contact Melanie Rubin about the complaints, but he never received a response. In January 2007, Howard Rubin began creating various websites, entitled “Why Not to Hire an Inept Photographer,” which showed several of the wedding photographs and criticized Matteo’s work. Matteo sued for copyright infringement, defamation, false light invasion of privacy, interference with prospective business advantage. On Dec. 3, 2007, the court denied Rubin’s motion to dismiss these claims. (Matteo v. Rubin, 2007 WL 4294734 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 3, 2007). On April 8, the suit was dismissed pursuant to a settlement.
Links and Court Documents:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-ilndce/case_no-1:2007cv02536/case_id-208708/
Jaeger v. Okon, No. 07-L-004940 (Ill Cir. Ct., Cook Co. filed May 11, 2007).
Status: Confidential monetary settlement
In response to frustration with a development project managed by plaintiff James Jaeger and his development company, defendants Joy and Tom Okon published several critical blog posts on the North Center Neighbors blog, northcenterneighbors.blogspot.com. Jaeger brought suit for defamation based on these posts, as well as e-mails, which alleged corrupt business dealings. The case was settled, on undisclosed terms, outside of court while a motion to dismiss under theIllinois
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/jaeger-v-okon
http://chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=48&SubSectionID=141&ArticleID=4724&TM=39096.86
Status: Confidential monetary settlement
In response to frustration with a development project managed by plaintiff James Jaeger and his development company, defendants Joy and Tom Okon published several critical blog posts on the North Center Neighbors blog, northcenterneighbors.blogspot.com. Jaeger brought suit for defamation based on these posts, as well as e-mails, which alleged corrupt business dealings. The case was settled, on undisclosed terms, outside of court while a motion to dismiss under the
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/jaeger-v-okon
http://chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=48&SubSectionID=141&ArticleID=4724&TM=39096.86
Eastwood v. Goodman, No. ______ (Ill. Cir. Ct. Kane County
Status: Unknown
The owners of a court reporting company sued a woman who had worked as a court reporter for the company, after she began a blog titled “Let’s Stop Eastwood-Stein,” (stopeastwood-stein.blogspot.com) stating that she was never paid, and soliciting similar stories from others. The fate of the case is unknown, but the blog has been removed.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/bescr-v-goodman
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=79395&src=5
Status: Unknown
The owners of a court reporting company sued a woman who had worked as a court reporter for the company, after she began a blog titled “Let’s Stop Eastwood-Stein,” (stopeastwood-stein.blogspot.com) stating that she was never paid, and soliciting similar stories from others. The fate of the case is unknown, but the blog has been removed.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/bescr-v-goodman
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=79395&src=5
Fisher & Phillips, LLP v. Doe, Civil No. 05-01719 (N.D. Ga.
Status: Dismissed
Atlanta-based employment law firm Fisher & Phillips LLP sued five "John Does," claiming they published "false and malicious communications" about the firm on the Internet. (The complaint did not identify the web sites at issue.) The firm agreed to dismissal of the case after the court cited it for failure to effectuate service of process.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2005/07/18/newscolumn2.html?from_rss=1
Status: Dismissed
Atlanta-based employment law firm Fisher & Phillips LLP sued five "John Does," claiming they published "false and malicious communications" about the firm on the Internet. (The complaint did not identify the web sites at issue.) The firm agreed to dismissal of the case after the court cited it for failure to effectuate service of process.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2005/07/18/newscolumn2.html?from_rss=1
Vision Media TV Group v. Richard, Civil No. 08-80797 (S.D. Fla.
Status: Withdrawn by plaintiff.
Vision Media TV Group allegedly contacted Leslie Richard, saying that it would feature her eco-friendly fashion business in a report to be aired on PBS and CNN. But then the company told Richard that she would have to pay $22,900 in production fees and $3,000 in airfare. Richard wrote about the incident on her blog for her business, the Oko Box blog, http://oko-organic-clothing.blogspot.com/, calling it a “scam.” The television company then filed suit, but dropped the case in October 2008.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/vision-media-tv-group-v-richard
http://www.mountainx.com/news/2008/local_business_owner_sued_for_20_million_over_blog_post
http://oko-organic-clothing.blogspot.com/2008/07/vision-media-sues-oko-box-for-5-million.html
Complaint: http://www.mountainx.com/files/vmtlawsuit.pdf
Status: Withdrawn by plaintiff.
Vision Media TV Group allegedly contacted Leslie Richard, saying that it would feature her eco-friendly fashion business in a report to be aired on PBS and CNN. But then the company told Richard that she would have to pay $22,900 in production fees and $3,000 in airfare. Richard wrote about the incident on her blog for her business, the Oko Box blog, http://oko-organic-clothing.blogspot.com/, calling it a “scam.” The television company then filed suit, but dropped the case in October 2008.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/vision-media-tv-group-v-richard
http://www.mountainx.com/news/2008/local_business_owner_sued_for_20_million_over_blog_post
http://oko-organic-clothing.blogspot.com/2008/07/vision-media-sues-oko-box-for-5-million.html
Complaint: http://www.mountainx.com/files/vmtlawsuit.pdf
Scheff v. Bock, No. CACE03022837 (Fla. Cir. Ct. default verdict Sept. 19, 2006).
Status: $11.3 million default award for plaintiff
The owner of a company that consults parents of troubled teenagers won $11.3 million against the mother of such a child for her postings on various web sites disparaging the consultancy. The woman posted the comments after the company had helped her remove her sons from a school operated by the World Association of Specialty Programs and Schools, but had refused to put the woman in touch with other students who alleged sexual abuse at schools operated by the association. Although the defendant initially appeared in the suit, she later defaulted. After a trial on damages, the jury awarded $6.3 million in compensatory and $5 million in punitive damages. The defendant subsequently challenged the default award, but it was upheld on July 25, 2007.
Status: $11.3 million default award for plaintiff
The owner of a company that consults parents of troubled teenagers won $11.3 million against the mother of such a child for her postings on various web sites disparaging the consultancy. The woman posted the comments after the company had helped her remove her sons from a school operated by the World Association of Specialty Programs and Schools, but had refused to put the woman in touch with other students who alleged sexual abuse at schools operated by the association. Although the defendant initially appeared in the suit, she later defaulted. After a trial on damages, the jury awarded $6.3 million in compensatory and $5 million in punitive damages. The defendant subsequently challenged the default award, but it was upheld on July 25, 2007.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/scheff-v-bock
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-10-10-internet-defamation-case_x.htm
http://newsbusters.org/node/8240
http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=21761 (an opinionated reaction to the case)
http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=Unknown&s=FL%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20&d=32035
Virgin America v. Adrants Publishing, No. 3:09-cv-00337-BZ (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 26, 2009).
Status: Pending.
In response to a fake advertisement for airline Virgin America that appeared on website adrants.com, Virgin brought a six-count complaint alleging, among other things, trademark infringement and defamation. A disclaimer was initially placed on the posting, but was later removed. The fake advertisement featured a photo of the crash of US Airways flight 1549 into the Hudson River and included the caption: “The Hudson Crash: Just One More Reason to Fly Virgin.”
Links and Court Documents
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/virgin-america-v-adrants-publishing
Status: Pending.
In response to a fake advertisement for airline Virgin America that appeared on website adrants.com, Virgin brought a six-count complaint alleging, among other things, trademark infringement and defamation. A disclaimer was initially placed on the posting, but was later removed. The fake advertisement featured a photo of the crash of US Airways flight 1549 into the Hudson River and included the caption: “The Hudson Crash: Just One More Reason to Fly Virgin.”
Links and Court Documents
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/virgin-america-v-adrants-publishing
Status: Non-monetary settlement after defendant’s motion to strike (anti-SLAPP motion) denied
The Mortgage Lender Implode-O-Meter (ml-implode.com), a blog run by Aaron Krowne which tracks mortgage finance companies that are in financial trouble, posted the contents of an anonymous e-mail sent to the site alleging that Loan Center of California was having financial problems. (The e-mail contents were also posted on the AutoDogmatic blog (www.autodogmatic.com), run by a friend of Krowne’s.) Krowne removed the post the same day after Loan Center of California complained, but the company still filed suit. Krowne’s motion to have the suit struck under California’s anti-SLAPP statute was denied on Sept. 7, 2007; the case was settled two months later.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.thereporter.com/ci_6638254
http://ml-implode.com/viewnews/2007-07-26_JudgeFranklinRTaftDeniesMlImplodeMotionToStrikeviaAntiSLAPP.html (denial of motion to strike; includes documents)
http://ml-implode.com/viewnews/2007-07-05_LoanCenterofCaliforniaSuesMortgageLenderImplodeOMeterMotiontoStr.html (complaint; includes documents)
Case information and documents: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/loan-center-california-v-krowne
Complaint: http://ml-implode.com/lcc_suit/complaint.pdf
Docket available via http://courtconnect.solanocourts.com
Chick v. Kuziw, No. RCV-RS093848 (
Status: Settled
The owner of the Chicks Sporting Goods chain, which has stores in southern
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/chick-v-kuziw
Docket available via http://www.sbcounty.gov/courts/flash.asp (search civil cases for case number)
Status: Non-monetary settlement
The operators of the
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/fromcomments/254963.php
Case information and documents: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/tucson-greyhound-park-v-zoldan
Articles: http://www.endtucsongreyhoundracing.com/blog/first-amendmentlawsuit/
Shurwest Product Connection, LLC v. Premium Producers Group LLC, No. CV2007-003021 (
Status: Pending
An investment company sued a company that makes software to rate investments over comments on the software company’s blog about an annuity product offered by the plaintiff, and the subsequent inclusion of the investment company in a list of non-independent wholesale firms. A defense motion to dismiss the case was denied on Sept. 21, 2007.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060825/REG/608250701/-1/INDaily04
Docket available at http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseSearch.asp (enter case number)
Case information and documents: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/shurwest-product-connection-llc-v-premium-producers-group-llc
Order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss: http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Civil/092007/m2855169.pdf
Mesa Airlines v. Uslan, Civil No. 07-178 (D. Ariz. dismissed June 25, 2007).
Status: Dismissed
Mesa Airlines, which does business as the airline go! serving the Hawaiian islands, sued Mike Uslan over postings on the dontflygo.com blog site, which Mesa alleged he controlled. Uslan, a pilot with rival Aloha Airlines, was reported in one newspaper article to have been a founder of an anti-go! group named “Hawaii's Airline Employees Repelling Ornstein," or “HERO.” ("Ornstein" refers to Jonathan Ornstein, the Chief Executive Officer of Mesa's parent company, Mesa Air Group, Inc.) Mesa Air Group is an Arizona corporation based in Pheonix, and the dontflygo.com site was initially registered with an Arizona-based hosting company that provided anonymous hosting. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the case on personal jurisdiction grounds, holding that that Mesa had not sufficiently alleged Uslan’s connection to the site.
Links and Court Documents
Summary and case documents: http://www.mesavsuslan.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesa_Airlines_v._Uslan_lawsuit
http://honoluluweekly.com/diary/2007/03/navy-to-use-sonar-despite-earlier-rulings-2/
http://starbulletin.com/2007/06/23/business/story02.html
http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2007/02/26/daily45.html?surround=lfn
http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2007/06/25/daily17.html?from_rss=
http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=524317
Order granting motion to dismiss: http://www.dontflygo.com/documents/decision.pdf
Status: Dismissed
Mesa Airlines, which does business as the airline go! serving the Hawaiian islands, sued Mike Uslan over postings on the dontflygo.com blog site, which Mesa alleged he controlled. Uslan, a pilot with rival Aloha Airlines, was reported in one newspaper article to have been a founder of an anti-go! group named “Hawaii's Airline Employees Repelling Ornstein," or “HERO.” ("Ornstein" refers to Jonathan Ornstein, the Chief Executive Officer of Mesa's parent company, Mesa Air Group, Inc.) Mesa Air Group is an Arizona corporation based in Pheonix, and the dontflygo.com site was initially registered with an Arizona-based hosting company that provided anonymous hosting. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the case on personal jurisdiction grounds, holding that that Mesa had not sufficiently alleged Uslan’s connection to the site.
Links and Court Documents
Summary and case documents: http://www.mesavsuslan.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesa_Airlines_v._Uslan_lawsuit
http://honoluluweekly.com/diary/2007/03/navy-to-use-sonar-despite-earlier-rulings-2/
http://starbulletin.com/2007/06/23/business/story02.html
http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2007/02/26/daily45.html?surround=lfn
http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2007/06/25/daily17.html?from_rss=
http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=524317
Order granting motion to dismiss: http://www.dontflygo.com/documents/decision.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)