Johnson v. Arden

8th Cir.: Cat Breeders Lose Bid to Revive Defamation Case
Courthouse News Service
Exotic cat breeders in Missouri lost their bid to revive defamation claims against an Internet service provider and two people who allegedly complaints about their breeding service on ComplaintsBoard.com.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/10/29461.htm
-- Decision, Johnson v. Arden: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/10/08/092601P.pdf

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

Carl v. BernardJCarl.com, No. 1:07-cv-1128 (D.C. Va., order filed Sept. 30,2009)
STATUS: Pending

The plaintiff, a trained lawyer named Bernard J. Carl, was a founder of a private equity firm called Brazos Europe, Inc. This company attempted to acquire a small luxury brand in France; as part of the acquisition process, Brazos retained a French law firm. Unbeknownst to plaintiff, the French law firm subcontracted some work to Fabrice Marchisio, a partner in the French law firm Cotty Vivant Marchisio & Lauzeral. As a result of this work, Marchisio alleged that he was owed money by the plaintiff. Plaintiff refused to pay, and Marchisio and his firm brought suit in French court to recover the disputed fee; this suit failed.

After the case failed, Marchisio bought the domain name "bernardjcarl.com," and, as the sole content on the site, posted a letter from Marchisio to Carl (and his partner in Brazos, Sharon Fairbanks), asking them to please pay their bill. For example: "You enver complained about the quality of the our input but surprisingly 'disappeared' when invoice payment was due. We have tried to contact you many times since then.... but silence was the only answer. Have you forgotten our phone numbers?"

Carl brought suit in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging false representation under federal trademark law, cybersquatting, cyberpiracy, and common law libel. The judge dismissed all but the libel claims on September 30.

Links and court documents
Sept. 30 Order

Doninger v. Niehoff, No. HHB-CV-07-4014735-S (Conn. Super. Ct., filed July 16, 2007).

Doninger v. Niehoff, Civil No. 07-01129 (D. Conn. removed from state court July 26, 2007).

Status: Denial of preliminary injunction upheld; defense motion for summary judgment granted in part; appeal pending.

A high school student and her mother sued the principal of her daughter’s school and the superintendent of her school district after they barred the student from running for re-election as student secretary after she posted complaints to her blog about a student-planned concert that was canceled by school administrators.

The state case was moved to federal court in late July 2007. On Aug. 31, 2007, the federal trial court denied a preliminary injunction to force school administrators to allow the girl to run for office; the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling on May 30, 2008. Doninger v. Dept. of Homeland Security, No. 07-CV-3885 (2d Cir. 2008).

The case then returned to the trial court, which partially granted a defense motion for summary judgment on Jan. 15, 2009, leaving only a claim alleging that the student’s speech was chilled when she was prohibited from wearing a t-shirt with a message on it at school. The student has appealed the partial grant of summary judgment.

Links and Court Documents:

Case information: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/doninger-v-niehoff

http://www.rep-am.com/News/438521.txt

http://www.ctcentral.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18616270&BRD=1643&PAG=461&dept_id=10486&rfi=6

http://www.nbc30.com/news/13385544/detail.html

http://region19.blogspot.com/2008_05_01_archive.html

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/05/30/second-circuit-upholds-punishment-of-high-school-student-for-out-of-school-web-entry/

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2008/11/13/news/a3-db.txt

State complaint: http://mirandamagazine.com/joomla/images//donninger%20lawsuit.pdf

State docket: http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DispDetail.asp?DocNum=HHB-CV-07-4014735-S

Federal district court decision denying injunction: http://www.splc.org/pdf/doningerdenial.pdf

Appellate decision affirming denial of injunction: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA3LTM4ODUgLWN2X29wbi5wZGY=/07-3885%20-cv_opn.pdf

Sedgwick Claims Management Servs., Inc. v. Delsman, No. C 09-1468 SBA (N.D. Cal. 2009).
Status: Defense motion to dismiss granted (July 16, 2009).

Sedgwick Claims Management Services sued Robert A. Delsman, Jr., who was denied a disability claim by Sedgwick, and has criticized the company on his blogs, gesupplydiscrimination.com; Sedgwickcms.blogspot.com; and gesupplyrexeldiscrimination.com.

The company sued for defamation over the blog postings, and for copyright infringement for Delsman's use of photographs of two Sedgwick executives, altered to appear like Adolph Hitler and Heinrich Himler, on "Wanted" posters on postcards sent to Sedgwick employees.

The court dismissed the case, holding that Delsman's use of the phorographs was fair use, and dismissing the other claims under California's anti-SLAPP statute.

Links and Court Documents:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_19-2009_07_25.shtml#1248388260
Ruling dismissing case: http://volokh.com/files/sedgwick.pdf

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

First Baptist Church v. Doe (Fla., subpeonas)
Status: Subpeonas used to unveil anonymous blogger

In response to criticism of the church and its pastor on the "FBC Jax Watchdog" blog (fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com), the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Fla. turned to church member Robert Hinson, a detective with the Jacksonville sheriff's office and a member of the reverend's security detail, to investigate. Hinton issued subpeonas to Google to unmask the anonymous blogger, and used the information obtained from Google to determine the blogger was church member Thomas Rich.

The sheriff's office closed the case after determining that no crimes were committed, but Hinton told church officials the identity of the blogger, and Rich was banned from the church.

Rich then filed a complaint with the sheriff's office, and said that he was looking into his legal options.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-04-08/story/unmasked_blogger_blames_first_baptist_sheriffs_office
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=135628&catid=3
http://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-04-12/story/fbc_blogger_feels_privacy_was_violated

Matteo v. Rubin, No. 07-CV-2536 (N.D. Ill. filed 2007)
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 the Illinois’ recently-enacted anti-SLAPP statute, the Citizen Participation Act, was pending.

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

Veranda Partners LLC v. Giles, No. 07 CA 2622 (Fla. Cir. Ct ., Orange County filed March 13, 2007).
Status: Summary judgment granted; blogger awarded $180,000 for attorney fees
The developer of a community in central Florida sued area resident Larry Giles over his website, www.verandaparknews.com (now archived at here), criticizing the development’s spending and landscaping. Giles responded with a motion to dismiss the suit under Florida’s anti-SLAPP statute and a counterclaim for abuse of process. After plaintiffs changed attorneys and then did pursue the case, the defense renewed its motions, which the court granted. The court also entered a default verdict on the counterclaims, awarding Giles triple his attorney’s fees, a total of $180,407.69, under Florida’s anti-SLAPP statute.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/veranda-partners-v-giles-lawsuit
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-mgiles2807mar28,0,2382483.story?coll=orl-home-headlines
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-slapp0707apr07,0,7548827.story
Complaint: http://mworlando.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/complaint-veranda-giles.pdf
Answer: http://mworlando.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/answer.pdf
Defendant’s counter-claims: http://mworlando.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/counterclaim.pdf
Other case documents: http://mworlando.wordpress.com/the/; also http://randazza.wordpress.com/2007/04/13/an-ongoing-defamation-suit/; http://www.verandaparknews.com/
Final default judgement against plaintiff: http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2008-09-11-Final%20Default%20Judgment%20Against%20Veranda%20Partners.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.

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

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/06/MNGBEPM57J1.DTL&hw=reputation&sn=012&sc=575

New School of Orlando, Inc. v. McSween, Civil No. 2007-CA-014312-O (Fla. Cir. Ct., Orange County filed Oct. 28, 2007).

Status: Settled

A private school sued the mother of a former student over comments criticizing the school that the mother posted on her AOL Hometown web site (apparently hometown.aol.com/sayno2newschool/, no longer operational). After receiving a letter threatening legal action over the comments, Sonjia McSween moved her comments to a new site (parentalmusings.blogspot.com/), then another (www.myspace.com/parentalmusings). In February 2008, the parties apparently reached a settlement.

Links and Court Documents:

http://www.wftv.com/news/14603642/detail.html?rss=orlc&psp=irresistible

Case docket: http://www.myorangeclerk.com/myclerk/CaseDetails.aspx?ID=5554180

Lexington Homes, Inc. v. Siskind, No. 2004-CA01018 (No. 04-CA-1018WS-G) (Fla. Cir. Ct., Pasco County dismissed March 2006).

Status: Dismissed

A housing developer sued the creator a web site (www.bad-lexingtonhomesinc.net; no longer active) that criticized the quality of its homes, saying that it led to decreased sales. The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, since the defendants are not Florida residents (they live in New York, but own property in Florida). The company filed an appeal, which it later dropped.

Links and Court Documents:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/lexington-homes-v-siskind

http://www.legaline.com/2006/03/florida-court-dismisses-web-defamation.html

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/01/Hernando/Builder_sues_man_for_.shtml

Order dismissing case: http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2005-11-02-Order%20Granting%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss.pdf

Choy v. Boyne, No. HHD-CV-06-5005693-S (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford filed Aug. 17, 2006).
Status: Dismissed (Nov. 30, 2006).

A doctor filed a libel lawsuit in New York against the author of a website that was critical of the doctor, after the author’s wife had won a malpractice settlement. The New York case was dismissed (see below), but the doctor filed a new suit in Connecticut. The Connecticut suit was dismissed upon a defense motion.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/choy-v-boyne
Docket at http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DispDetail.asp?DocNum=HHD-CV-06-5005693-S

Peters & Freedman LLP v. McMahon, No. 05CC11632 (Cal. Super., Orange County filed 2005); Pratt v. McMahon, No. 06CC01968 (Cal. Super., Orange County filed 2006).

Status: Denial of defense motion to strike suit under anti-SLAPP statute affirmed, No. G038236, 2007 WL 3151681 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. Oct 30, 2007), reh’g granted (Nov 29, 2007), aff’d on reh’g, 2008 WL 391190 (Cal.App. 4th Dist. Feb. 14, 2008)

Defendants Arnold and Elizabeth McMahon maintain a web site, the American Homeowners Resource Center (www.ahrc.com), with the stated goal of “help[ing] citizens in homeowner associations to take back their homes from the two generations of crooked lawyers, politicians, judges and vendors who have stolen them.” Peters & Freedman, a law firm in Encinitas and Palm Desert, Cal. that specializes in homeowners’ association law, sued for libel over comments that the McMahons posted to their site; former Peters & Freedman attorney Jeffrey R. Pratt subsequently filed his own suit The McMahons filed a motion to strike both lawsuits under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The district court denied the motion in both cases, and an appellate court affirmed, holding that the comments about Peters & Freedman “do not concern a public issue.”

Links and Court Documents:

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2007/pete103107.htm

Appellate decision: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/G037871.PDF

Hagele v. Hanson, No. 06AS00839 (Cal. Super., Sacramento County filed March 2, 2006).
Status: Temporary restraining order issued; case pending.

In Jan. 2003, Brent Hanson, who operates and posts to websites criticizing refractive surgery, filed suit in Illinois against Glenn Hagele, founder and executive director of the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance (www.usaeyes.org), a group of such surgeons. Hanson v. Hagele, No. 03M300136 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cooke County 2003) (docket at https://63.251.13.149/cookcounty/Finddock.asp?DocketKey=CAAD0MD0AAABDG0SD). The Illinois case was dismissed in June 2003, after Hanson did not pursue it. After dismissal of the Illinois case, Hanson added postings to his web sites claiming that Hagele had lost the Illinois suit and was being pursued by a collection agency. Hagele then to sued Hanson in California state court on the grounds that these statements were libelous; he added privacy claims after Hanson posted personal information about Hagele, including financial information. On March 4, 2008, the court issued a temporary restraining order against Hagele.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/hagele-v-hanson
Complaint: http://www.glennhagele.com/brenthanson/hagele-v-brent-hanson-defamation.pdf
Answer to complaint: http://www.usaeyes.info/documents/glennhagele/lawsuits/hagele_vs_hanson_response_10.pdf
Defense motion for default judgment: http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2006-09-18-Hagele's%20Request%20for%20Default%20Judgment.pd

5th St. Loft, LLC v. Dylan, No. BC392796 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County filed July 17, 2008).
Status: Dismissed under anti-SLAPP law

he owner of the Shybary Grand Lofts building in downtown Los Angeles sued the bloggers of the truedowntown.com web site, which states its goal “to inspire positive change at the Shybary Grand by identifying issues that need to be dealt with by the board and management company, especially if those issues have ignored California Law.” On Sept. 24, 2008, the court granted the defendant’s motion to strike the complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP law.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2008/california-developer-sues-homeowners-libel-over-disparaging-blog-comments
Complaint: http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2008-06-17-Shy%20Complaint.pdf

Brabus Ventures v. Zablotskyy, No. VG08390958 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Co. filed June 4, 2008).

Status: Dismissed

Following a series of postings on the “Go Beyond MLS” blog (www.go-beyond-mls.com) in which former real estate agent Vlad Zablotskyy criticized the website www.ePerks.com, operated by Brabus Ventures Corp, Brabus filed a complaint in state court alleging defamation. The complaint claimed that Zablotskyy defamed Brabus by asserting that they had indirectly and falsely accused him of charges of child molestation on the Yahoo! answers website through an attempt to identify them with the IP address used by the poster. Brabus voluntarily dismissed the action on October 23, 2008.

Links and Court Documents:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/brabus-ventures-v-zablotskyy

Summons and complaint: http://www.scribd.com/doc/3271851/Barabus-vs-Zablotskyy

Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer, No. 01-1752, 2004 WL 964163 (S.D. Cal. dismissed April 30, 2004), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005).
Status: Settled.

Defendant Michael Kremer, dissatisfied with hair restoration services at the Bosley Medical Institute, Inc., created a website (www.BosleyMedical.com; no longer existing) to complain. In 2000, the Institute filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization over Kremer’s use of an allegedly confusing URL for his site. WIPO ruled for Kremer, finding “legitimate fair use and free speech rights with respect to the use of the Domain Name for a criticism site.” Bosley Medical Group v. Kremer, Case No. D2000-1647 (WIPO Feb. 28, 2001). Then, in Sept. 2001 the company sued over Kremer’s use of its trademark “Bosley Medical” in federal court, and alleged that Kremer was “cybersquatting” (using a famous name as a web site URL in order to sell it to the entity most often associated with that name), which is actionable under Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. S.1125(d). The trial court dismissed all of the Institute’s claims. The Institute appealed, and the appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The appeals court held that while Kremer’s noncommercial use of the trademark as a domain name was not actionable as infringement, but reversed on the cybersquatting claim and on the lower court’s dismissal of claims under state trademark law. In March 2007, the trial court denied Kremer’s motion for summary judgment on the cybersquatting claim and also denied his motion to dismiss the state law claims. 2007 WL 935708 (S.D.Cal. March 17, 2007). In July 2007, the parties settled.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case369.cfm
http://www.digestiblelaw.com/cybersquatting/blogQ.aspx?entry=2990
http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2005/04/05/im_not_only_a_member_of_the_hair_club_for_men_im_also.php
Appeals court decision: http://www.casp.net/cases/bosley.html

Sheehan v. King County Experian, No. C97-1360WD (W.D. Wash. dismissed July 17, 1998).
Status: Dismissed

In 1997, William Sheehan filed suit against a number of credit reporting agencies, including Experian, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In response, Experian sought and received a temporary restraining order against Sheehan’s web site, http://billsheehan.com (no longer in use), which included disparaging comments regarding the agency and contact information for its employees and attorneys. After weighing the First Amendment interests, the court vacated the temporary restraining order and denied Experian’s effort to turn it into a preliminary injunction. The court then dismissed the entire case.

Links and Court Documents:
http://www.aclu-wa.org/Issues/cyber-liberties/Sheehan.html
Docket: http://jya.com/sheehan-dock.htm
Order denying preliminary injunction: http://www.loundy.com/CASES/Sheehan_v_King_County.htm