Westlake Legal Group v. Schumacher (8/19/14)
STATUS: Court dismissed case over improper service.
E.D. Va.: Court Sets Aside Default Libel Judgment and Injunctions Against Yelp
A Virginia lawyer and his firm had obtained a $200,000 default judgment over a negative review posted on Yelp. Granting a motion to set aside the judgment, the Court held that service on Yelp was improper and dismissed the complaint as time barred or alternatively barred by Section 230.
Opinion:
http://www.medialaw.org/images/medialawdaily/yelp08.20.14.pdf
Showing posts with label Default. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Default. Show all posts
Blockowicz v. Williams, No. 09-C-3955 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2009)
UPDATE (1/5/11)
STATUS: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court on Dec. 27, 2010.
7th Cir.: Websites Don't Have to Remove Nasty Comments
Courthouse News Service
A website's host and manager are not bound by an injunction that ordered the removal of defamatory comments because they were not "in active concert or participation" with those who posted the comments, the 7th Circuit ruled.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/29/32959.htm
--Decision: Blockowicz v. Williams
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1549803.html
Status: Bloggers enjoined after default judgment.
The Blockowicz family brought suit against defendants Joseph David Williams and Michelle Ramey after they allegedly posted defamatory statements on various websites. The defendants defaulted, and on Oct. 6, 2009, the court entered a permanent injunction requiring the defendants to remove their postings from the websites. The plaintiffs, however, were unable to contact the defendants; instead they approached third party providers of the websites. One of these, RipoffReport.com, refused to comply, arguing the court had no jurisdiction over them. The court agreed, finding the provider was not "acting in concert or legally identified" with the enjoined party as required for the court to enforce an injunction against a non-party under F.R.C.P. 65(d). Accordingly, the court denied the Blockowicz's motion to compel.
Links and court documents
Opinion denying motion to compel, filed Dec. 21, 2009
Ripoff Report Not Bound by Takedown Injunction Against User - Blockowicz v. Williams, Technology & Law Marketing Blog, Dec. 22, 2009
Court Allows Libelous Post To Remain Online, MediaPost Blogs, Dec. 24, 2009
Righthaven, LLC v. Klerks
D. Nev.: Blogger Sued By Copyright Troll Argues He Had 'Implied License'
MediaPost
The blogger, Jan Klerks, who publishes the noncommercial site www.skyscrapercity.com, about urban development, argues that the newspaper granted him an implied license to republish its articles by encouraging readers to save the pieces and send them to others.
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=133992&nid=117735
--Defendant Motion to Set Aside Default: Righthaven, LLC v. Klerks: http://www.scribd.com/doc/36092756/Motion-to-Set-Aside-Default-Righthaven-v-Klerks
See also:
Website operators use new defenses to fight R-J copyright suits
Las Vegas Sun
http://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/18/website-operators-use-new-defenses-fight-r-j-copyr/
UPDATE (10/11/10)
D. Nev.: Sharron Angle signals interest in settling copyright lawsuit
Las Vegas Sun
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle is signaling she's interested in settling a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against her by the Las Vegas Review-Journal's copyright enforcement partner.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/oct/09/sharron-angle-signals-interest-settling-copyright
Complaint: Righthaven v. Angle:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36931569/Right-Haven-v-Angle
UPDATE (9/21/10):
D. Nev.: Judge Says Blogger Sued By Righthaven Might Have Fair-Use Defense
Media Post
In her eight-page ruling [granting defendant's motion to set aside default], Navarro wrote that Klerks has at least two meritorious defenses to an infringement action -- that he made fair use of the newspaper's material, and that the newspaper granted him an implied license.
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=136044%3C/a
--Order to Grant Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default: Righthaven, LLC v. Klerks:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37812449/Righthaven-v-Klerks
MediaPost
The blogger, Jan Klerks, who publishes the noncommercial site www.skyscrapercity.com, about urban development, argues that the newspaper granted him an implied license to republish its articles by encouraging readers to save the pieces and send them to others.
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=133992&nid=117735
--Defendant Motion to Set Aside Default: Righthaven, LLC v. Klerks: http://www.scribd.com/doc/36092756/Motion-to-Set-Aside-Default-Righthaven-v-Klerks
See also:
Website operators use new defenses to fight R-J copyright suits
Las Vegas Sun
http://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/18/website-operators-use-new-defenses-fight-r-j-copyr/
UPDATE (10/11/10)
D. Nev.: Sharron Angle signals interest in settling copyright lawsuit
Las Vegas Sun
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle is signaling she's interested in settling a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against her by the Las Vegas Review-Journal's copyright enforcement partner.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/oct/09/sharron-angle-signals-interest-settling-copyright
Complaint: Righthaven v. Angle:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36931569/Right-Haven-v-Angle
UPDATE (9/21/10):
D. Nev.: Judge Says Blogger Sued By Righthaven Might Have Fair-Use Defense
Media Post
In her eight-page ruling [granting defendant's motion to set aside default], Navarro wrote that Klerks has at least two meritorious defenses to an infringement action -- that he made fair use of the newspaper's material, and that the newspaper granted him an implied license.
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=136044%3C/a
--Order to Grant Defendant's Motion to Set Aside Default: Righthaven, LLC v. Klerks:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37812449/Righthaven-v-Klerks
Article of the Month: Maryland Federal Court Rejects “Hot News” Misappropriation Claim
In addition to our brief posts on legal actions against bloggers, this blog will also be home to a monthly article exploring one of the cases in more depth. The article will also be published in MLRC's MediaLawLetter, our monthly magazine that covers what's happening in the media world. To see all of the articles from the MediaLawLetter, please consider joining Media Law Resource Center!
A recent decision from the District of Maryland, provides an interesting take on the “hot news” misappropriation tort. Agora Financial LLC v. Samler, No. 09-1200 (D. Md. June 17, 2010). At issue in the case were financial recommendations similar to those at issue in the closely-watched Barclays v. TheFlyOntheWall case currently pending before the Second Circuit. In Agora, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment and dismissed their “hot news” case because, the magistrate judge found, that plaintiffs’ financial recommendations were likely “original works” within the scope of the Copyright Act, and therefore any misappropriation claim involving them was preempted by Section 301. Magistrate Judge Beth Gesner’s findings were adopted in a summary order on July 15 by Judge William Quarles.
Background
Plaintiffs Agora Financial, LLC, Oxford Club, LLC, Taipan Publishing Group, LLC, Stansberry and Associates Investment Research, LLC, and Sovereign Offshore, LLC publish financial investment newsletters, featuring the recommendations of financial analysts for investment strategies, specific investments, and summary lists. The newsletters are only sent to paid subscribers.
Plaintiffs brought suit on Nov. 23, 2009 against defendant Martin Samler, who operates the website Tipstraders.com (which is also only available to paid subscribers). Samler’s website lists a number of different analysts; each analyst’s name links to a page that summarizes the analyst’s latest recommended investments as well as statistical information about the stocks’ performance. The website had a disclaimer that noted that “the picks above are, unless otherwise stated, entered by registered members of TipsTraders.com,” and noted that any analyst may have recommended trades not listed, as well as different entry/exit strategies. The disclaimer also disavowed any affiliation with or endorsement by the analysts.
Samler did not respond to the complaint, and on January 22, 2010, Judge Quarles asked the magistrate to consider entry of default judgment. The magistrate accepted the complaint as true, but questioned whether the plaintiffs had pled a legitimate cause of action.
“Hot News” Claim
Magistrate Judge Gesner studied the history, as well as the current status of the “hot news” misappropriation tort, from International News Service v. Associated Press, 249 U.S. 215 (1918), to the state of the doctrine after the 1976 revisions to the Copyright Act, which explicitly preempted any state cause of action if the state rights are “equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright” and the work falls “within the subject matter of copyright.”
She paid particular attention to the 1991 Supreme Court holding that facts are not copyrightable because they are not original to the author. Feist Publ’n Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991). The Feist Court expressly noted that it was not overturning the 1918 INS decision. Feist, 499 U.S. at 354. She then came to the 1997 Second Circuit decision that held that hot news claims were not preempted by Section 301. National Basketball Assoc. v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997). (She also noted that the Fourth Circuit had never recognized the NBA test, and that it had been explicitly rejected by Judge Quarles in Lowry’s Reports, Inc. v. Legg Mason, Inc., 271 F. Supp. 2d 737 (D. Md. 2003)). The magistrate took particular note of two separate passages in NBA. First, the NBA court defined what it considered to be the essential five elements of an INS claim:
NBA, 105 F.3d at 852. The NBA court noted that INS is not about ethics, but “the protection of property rights in time-sensitive information. The next passage in NBA was the one Magistrate Judge Gesner focused on:
Magistrate Judge Gesner noted that in the three-element test, the work at issue must be facts – and noted that the Agora plaintiffs had not set forth any proof or pleading that the material at issue was “factual information.” “Instead,” she wrote, “this material appears to be ‘original’ works, which are copyrightable, and, therefore, not subject to protection under the NBA court's formulation of the INS doctrine.
She noted that “most courts applying the NBA test have only applied it where the material at issue was ‘factual,’ and therefore not copyrightable, citing Scranton Times, L.P. v. Wilkes-Barre Publ’g Co., No. 3:08-cv-2135, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17278 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2009) (facts from plaintiff’s obituaries), Pollstar v. Gigmania Ltd., 170 F. Supp. 2d 974 (E.D. Cal. 2000) (time-sensitive concert information); Fred Wehrenberg Circuit of Theatres, Inc. v. Moviefone, Inc., 73 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (E.D. Mo. 1999) (plaintiff’s theaters’ movie listings).
Notable exceptions to this reading of NBA included the recent Barclays Capital, Inc. v. TheFlyOnTheWall.com, No. 06-cv-4908, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25728 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2010) (stock investment recommendations) and X17, Inc. v. Lavandeira, 563 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (copyrighted photographs).
The magistrate reviewed the pleadings and found that there was no allegation that the work at issue was “factual,” and accordingly recommended the court deny the motion for default judgment. She also considered a Lanham Act claim, but held plaintiffs had failed to state a claim there as well because the disclaimers on the defendant’s website made clear that the website was in no way affiliated with plaintiffs or their employees, the analysts.
Judge Quarles accepted the magistrate’s recommendations in a summary order on July 15.
The recent Barclays decision only focused on the five-factor NBA test, and did not consider the three-prong test. Although many amicus briefs have been filed in the Barclays dispute – some arguing that Feist overruled INS and obliterated any protection for facts -- not one amicus seems to argue that investment recommendations are within the scope of copyright. (Instead, argues the brief of Google and Twitter: “The state law tort of ‘hot news’ misappropriation is unenforceable because the Copyright Clause has been construed to ban the removal of facts from the public domain, because application of ‘hot news’ misappropriation obstructs this constitutional mandate, and because states are precluded from implementing laws that interfere with constitutional guarantees.” Brief for Amici Curiae Google Inc. and Twitter, Inc. In Support of Reversal at 17, Barclays Capital, Inc. v. TheFlyOntheWall.com, Inc., No. 10-1372-CV (2d Cir. June 22, 2010).) Oral argument for the Barclays case was held on August 6; a decision is still pending.
A recent decision from the District of Maryland, provides an interesting take on the “hot news” misappropriation tort. Agora Financial LLC v. Samler, No. 09-1200 (D. Md. June 17, 2010). At issue in the case were financial recommendations similar to those at issue in the closely-watched Barclays v. TheFlyOntheWall case currently pending before the Second Circuit. In Agora, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment and dismissed their “hot news” case because, the magistrate judge found, that plaintiffs’ financial recommendations were likely “original works” within the scope of the Copyright Act, and therefore any misappropriation claim involving them was preempted by Section 301. Magistrate Judge Beth Gesner’s findings were adopted in a summary order on July 15 by Judge William Quarles.
Background
Plaintiffs Agora Financial, LLC, Oxford Club, LLC, Taipan Publishing Group, LLC, Stansberry and Associates Investment Research, LLC, and Sovereign Offshore, LLC publish financial investment newsletters, featuring the recommendations of financial analysts for investment strategies, specific investments, and summary lists. The newsletters are only sent to paid subscribers.
Plaintiffs brought suit on Nov. 23, 2009 against defendant Martin Samler, who operates the website Tipstraders.com (which is also only available to paid subscribers). Samler’s website lists a number of different analysts; each analyst’s name links to a page that summarizes the analyst’s latest recommended investments as well as statistical information about the stocks’ performance. The website had a disclaimer that noted that “the picks above are, unless otherwise stated, entered by registered members of TipsTraders.com,” and noted that any analyst may have recommended trades not listed, as well as different entry/exit strategies. The disclaimer also disavowed any affiliation with or endorsement by the analysts.
Samler did not respond to the complaint, and on January 22, 2010, Judge Quarles asked the magistrate to consider entry of default judgment. The magistrate accepted the complaint as true, but questioned whether the plaintiffs had pled a legitimate cause of action.
“Hot News” Claim
Magistrate Judge Gesner studied the history, as well as the current status of the “hot news” misappropriation tort, from International News Service v. Associated Press, 249 U.S. 215 (1918), to the state of the doctrine after the 1976 revisions to the Copyright Act, which explicitly preempted any state cause of action if the state rights are “equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright” and the work falls “within the subject matter of copyright.”
She paid particular attention to the 1991 Supreme Court holding that facts are not copyrightable because they are not original to the author. Feist Publ’n Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991). The Feist Court expressly noted that it was not overturning the 1918 INS decision. Feist, 499 U.S. at 354. She then came to the 1997 Second Circuit decision that held that hot news claims were not preempted by Section 301. National Basketball Assoc. v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997). (She also noted that the Fourth Circuit had never recognized the NBA test, and that it had been explicitly rejected by Judge Quarles in Lowry’s Reports, Inc. v. Legg Mason, Inc., 271 F. Supp. 2d 737 (D. Md. 2003)). The magistrate took particular note of two separate passages in NBA. First, the NBA court defined what it considered to be the essential five elements of an INS claim:
(i) the plaintiff generates or collects information at some cost or expense, (ii) the value of the information is highly time-sensitive, (iii), the defendant’s use of the information constitutes free-riding on the plaintiff’s costly efforts to generate or collect it, (iv) the defendant’s use of the information is in direct competition with a product or service offered by the plaintiff, and (v) the ability of other parties to free ride on the efforts of the plaintiff would so reduce the incentive to produce the product or service that its existence or quality would be substantially threatened.
NBA, 105 F.3d at 852. The NBA court noted that INS is not about ethics, but “the protection of property rights in time-sensitive information. The next passage in NBA was the one Magistrate Judge Gesner focused on:
We therefore find the extra elements – those in addition to the elements of copyright infringement – that allow a ‘hot news’ claim to survive preemption are: (i) the time-sensitive value of factual information, (ii) the free-riding by a defendant, and (iii) the threat to the very existence of the product or service provided by the plaintiff.NBA, 105 F.3d at 853 (emphasis added).
Magistrate Judge Gesner noted that in the three-element test, the work at issue must be facts – and noted that the Agora plaintiffs had not set forth any proof or pleading that the material at issue was “factual information.” “Instead,” she wrote, “this material appears to be ‘original’ works, which are copyrightable, and, therefore, not subject to protection under the NBA court's formulation of the INS doctrine.
She noted that “most courts applying the NBA test have only applied it where the material at issue was ‘factual,’ and therefore not copyrightable, citing Scranton Times, L.P. v. Wilkes-Barre Publ’g Co., No. 3:08-cv-2135, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17278 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2009) (facts from plaintiff’s obituaries), Pollstar v. Gigmania Ltd., 170 F. Supp. 2d 974 (E.D. Cal. 2000) (time-sensitive concert information); Fred Wehrenberg Circuit of Theatres, Inc. v. Moviefone, Inc., 73 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (E.D. Mo. 1999) (plaintiff’s theaters’ movie listings).
Notable exceptions to this reading of NBA included the recent Barclays Capital, Inc. v. TheFlyOnTheWall.com, No. 06-cv-4908, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25728 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2010) (stock investment recommendations) and X17, Inc. v. Lavandeira, 563 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (copyrighted photographs).
The magistrate reviewed the pleadings and found that there was no allegation that the work at issue was “factual,” and accordingly recommended the court deny the motion for default judgment. She also considered a Lanham Act claim, but held plaintiffs had failed to state a claim there as well because the disclaimers on the defendant’s website made clear that the website was in no way affiliated with plaintiffs or their employees, the analysts.
Judge Quarles accepted the magistrate’s recommendations in a summary order on July 15.
The recent Barclays decision only focused on the five-factor NBA test, and did not consider the three-prong test. Although many amicus briefs have been filed in the Barclays dispute – some arguing that Feist overruled INS and obliterated any protection for facts -- not one amicus seems to argue that investment recommendations are within the scope of copyright. (Instead, argues the brief of Google and Twitter: “The state law tort of ‘hot news’ misappropriation is unenforceable because the Copyright Clause has been construed to ban the removal of facts from the public domain, because application of ‘hot news’ misappropriation obstructs this constitutional mandate, and because states are precluded from implementing laws that interfere with constitutional guarantees.” Brief for Amici Curiae Google Inc. and Twitter, Inc. In Support of Reversal at 17, Barclays Capital, Inc. v. TheFlyOntheWall.com, Inc., No. 10-1372-CV (2d Cir. June 22, 2010).) Oral argument for the Barclays case was held on August 6; a decision is still pending.
Doe v. Karamian
STATUS: Default judgment awarded of $1.5M as of May 2010.
Nik Richie Strikes Back at Texas Woman Who Won Lawsuit; Vows to Make Her "The Face of Herpes"
Phoenix New Times
Nik Richie vows to make the Texas woman who won a lawsuit against him the "face of herpes in America" as retaliation.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/05/nik_richie_strikes_back_at_tex.php
Background:
Paralegal Sues Over ‘Herpes’ Blog Post
Law.com
An unidentified Texas paralegal is suing an Internet gossip blog over an anonymous February post that allegedly portrayed her, using her name, as unattractive and infected with herpes, among other negative characterizations.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/paralegal_sues_over_herpes_web_post/
Nik Richie Strikes Back at Texas Woman Who Won Lawsuit; Vows to Make Her "The Face of Herpes"
Phoenix New Times
Nik Richie vows to make the Texas woman who won a lawsuit against him the "face of herpes in America" as retaliation.
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2010/05/nik_richie_strikes_back_at_tex.php
Background:
Paralegal Sues Over ‘Herpes’ Blog Post
Law.com
An unidentified Texas paralegal is suing an Internet gossip blog over an anonymous February post that allegedly portrayed her, using her name, as unattractive and infected with herpes, among other negative characterizations.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/paralegal_sues_over_herpes_web_post/
Agora Financial LLC v. Samler
D. Md.: Magistrate Recommends Denial of Default Judgment Against Aggregator Website; Hot News Misappropriation Claimed
Plaintiffs brought suit after the defendant began posting investment recommendations contained in plaintiffs' publications to his subscription-based website, Tipstraders.com. The magistrate, considering the plaintiffs motion for a default judgment, recommended the court dismiss the hot news misappropriation theory, noting that the Fourth Circuit has never adopted the five-factor test from NBA v. Motorola, and found that even if the court were to apply the NBA test, the claim would still fail because plaintiffs failed to allege that the recommendations were "factual information" rather than "original works," the latter of which would be protected by copyright (and thus a misappropriation claim would be preempted under Section 301 of the Copyright Act). The magistrate also recommended the court find that defendant's conduct did not violate Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, because it was clear from defendant's website that there was no affiliation with plaintiffs.
-- Decision: Agora Financial LLC v. SamlerSee also:
MediaPost
A federal judge in Maryland said recently that stock recommendations should not be considered "hot news," but might deserve copyright protection.
>> Opinion: Agora Financial, LLC v. Samler
http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Opinions/AgoraFinancial.pdfUpdate:
Order adopting decision:
http://ia360707.us.archive.org/19/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.168309/gov.uscourts.mdd.168309.27.0.pdf
See our Article of the Month post for a more in-depth look at this decision, and where it fits in the recent spate of "hot news" cases: http://mlrcblogsuits.blogspot.com/2010/09/article-of-month-maryland-federal-court.html .
Dennis v. Watson, Civil No. 07CV05202 JFL002 (
Status: Trial on damages pending; interlocutory appeal pending before
In December 2007, Stephanie Dennis sued Teresa Watson, operator of the RomeNewsbyWatson.com web site, for comments posted on the site which alleged that Dennis was having an affair. [Although such suits are ordinarily barred by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. it, is unclear whether the argument was made in this case.]
After a short detour to federal court, which remanded the case to state court, Watson moved that the judge hearing the case recuse himself, but the judge refused; Watson then appealed the refusal to the Georgia Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, the judge held two hearings in the case and on Feb. 4, 2009 held Watson in default when she did not appear, and planned to hold a trial on damages. The following day, Feb. 5, the Georgia Supreme Court transferred the case to the Georgia Court of Appeals, which on Feb. 11 declined to order the lower court to halt its proceedings.
Links and Court Documents:
http://news.mywebpal.com/partners/680/public/news948417.html
http://news.mywebpal.com/partners/680/public/news947488.html
http://news.mywebpal.com/news_tool_v2.cfm?pnpid=680&show=archivedetails&ArchiveID=1325823&om=1
http://news.mywebpal.com/partners/680/public/news947926.html
http://thesummervillenews.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=244
Supreme Court docket: http://www.gasupreme.us/docket_search/results_one_record.php?docr_case_num=S09M0738
Supreme Court remand: http://www1.romenews-tribune.com/Files/Documents/020709teresawatson.pdf
Brandon v. Wizeman, No. 2008CP2602845 (S.C. Cir. Ct. default bench verdict Jan. 20, 2009).
Status: Settled (appeal of $1.8 million award to plaintiff after default judgment dismissed).
Defendant Donald Wizeman operates the Myrtle Beach Insider blog (myrtlebeachinsider.blogspot.com), which comments on local news and politics. In June 2007, a post on the blog referred to Scott Brandon, the head of a local advertising agency, as a “failed lawyer” and criticized one of his firm’s advertising campaigns. Circuit Court Judge Diane S. Goodstein entered summary judgment on liability against Wizeman after he did not appear at a Sept. 2008 hearing. Wizeman sought to have the ruling vacated in December, claiming that he had not received notice of the hearing; Goodstein refused, and Wizeman has appealed. Meanwhile, a special referee appointed by Goodstein awarded Brandon $800,000 in compensatory damages and $1.0 million in punitives.
Wizeman appealed, but before the appeal was heard the parties reached a settlement.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/brandon-v-wizeman
http://www.thesunnews.com/business/story/856883.html
Status: Settled (appeal of $1.8 million award to plaintiff after default judgment dismissed).
Defendant Donald Wizeman operates the Myrtle Beach Insider blog (myrtlebeachinsider.blogspot.com), which comments on local news and politics. In June 2007, a post on the blog referred to Scott Brandon, the head of a local advertising agency, as a “failed lawyer” and criticized one of his firm’s advertising campaigns. Circuit Court Judge Diane S. Goodstein entered summary judgment on liability against Wizeman after he did not appear at a Sept. 2008 hearing. Wizeman sought to have the ruling vacated in December, claiming that he had not received notice of the hearing; Goodstein refused, and Wizeman has appealed. Meanwhile, a special referee appointed by Goodstein awarded Brandon $800,000 in compensatory damages and $1.0 million in punitives.
Wizeman appealed, but before the appeal was heard the parties reached a settlement.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/brandon-v-wizeman
http://www.thesunnews.com/business/story/856883.html
Doe v. Fortuny, No. 08-CV-1050 (N.D. Ill.
Status: Default for plaintiff (entered Nov. 12, 2008); damages hearing pending.
In August, 2008 Jason Fortuny posted a fake advertisement on website craigslist.com, posing as a women seeking a brutal and dominant male sexual partner. The anonymous plaintiff was one of over 100 men who allegedly responded to the ad. Plaintiff sought $75,000 in damages and an injunction for copyright infringement and invasion of privacy, claiming that Fortuny had published the photos and contact information of those who responded to the ad on the website www.encyclopediadramatica.com, as well as to his personal blog, rfjason.com. The court granted the plaintiff a default verdict after the defendant did not respond to motions in a timely manner; a damages hearing is pending.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/doe-v-fortuny
Status: Default for plaintiff (entered Nov. 12, 2008); damages hearing pending.
In August, 2008 Jason Fortuny posted a fake advertisement on website craigslist.com, posing as a women seeking a brutal and dominant male sexual partner. The anonymous plaintiff was one of over 100 men who allegedly responded to the ad. Plaintiff sought $75,000 in damages and an injunction for copyright infringement and invasion of privacy, claiming that Fortuny had published the photos and contact information of those who responded to the ad on the website www.encyclopediadramatica.com, as well as to his personal blog, rfjason.com. The court granted the plaintiff a default verdict after the defendant did not respond to motions in a timely manner; a damages hearing is pending.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/doe-v-fortuny
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
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.
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
Wald v. Ford, No. SC086263 (Cal. Super., L.A. County
Status: Settled (unknown terms)
Jeff Ward, who managed the careers of various entertainers including George Carlin, George Forman and Donna Summer, sued owner Luke Ford and various unnamed contributors to the lukeford.net porn-industry blog for allegedly libelous comments about Ward on the site. Ford did not respond to the suit, and was held in default on Oct. 10, 2005. After Ford filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, the parties settled and the case was dismissed in Aug. 2006.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/wald-v-ford
http://tabloidbaby.blogspot.com/2006/05/wald-v-ford-lukes-lawyer-wants-you.html
Case documents (including complaint, motion to set aside default): http://www.lukeford.net/Images/photos3/WaldFord.doc
Docket available at http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil (enter case number)
Status: Settled (unknown terms)
Jeff Ward, who managed the careers of various entertainers including George Carlin, George Forman and Donna Summer, sued owner Luke Ford and various unnamed contributors to the lukeford.net porn-industry blog for allegedly libelous comments about Ward on the site. Ford did not respond to the suit, and was held in default on Oct. 10, 2005. After Ford filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, the parties settled and the case was dismissed in Aug. 2006.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/wald-v-ford
http://tabloidbaby.blogspot.com/2006/05/wald-v-ford-lukes-lawyer-wants-you.html
Case documents (including complaint, motion to set aside default): http://www.lukeford.net/Images/photos3/WaldFord.doc
Docket available at http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil (enter case number)
Lavandeira v. Infuse, LLC, Civil No. 08-4764 (C.D. Cal. filed July 21, 2008).
Status: Claims against two defendants dismissed by plaintiff; default judgment against remaining defendant entered May 6, 2009).
Blogger Mario Lavandeira, who operates the perezhilton.com celebrity news blog, sued the owners and contributors to the similarly-looking and named perezrevenge.com blog site, for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The blogger behind the perezrevenge.com site, Elizabeth Silver, then filed her own suit in New York. In this California case, the court first issued a default judgment for the plaintiff against two defendants, then withdrew it when the defendants challenged the courts jurisdiction. The plaintiff then agreed to dismiss the case against those defendants rather than litigate the issue. A default judgment against the remaining defendant was issued in May 2009; the court ordered that defendant to stop using the perezrevenge.com name and to turn the site over to Lavandeira. Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/lavandeira-v-infuse-llc
http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2008/07/perez-hilton-su.html
Complaint: http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/files/PerezComplaint.pdf
http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2009/05/perez-hilton-lawsuit-win-perezrevenge.html
Final default judgment and order: http://reporter.blogs.com/files/judgment.pdf
Status: Claims against two defendants dismissed by plaintiff; default judgment against remaining defendant entered May 6, 2009).
Blogger Mario Lavandeira, who operates the perezhilton.com celebrity news blog, sued the owners and contributors to the similarly-looking and named perezrevenge.com blog site, for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The blogger behind the perezrevenge.com site, Elizabeth Silver, then filed her own suit in New York. In this California case, the court first issued a default judgment for the plaintiff against two defendants, then withdrew it when the defendants challenged the courts jurisdiction. The plaintiff then agreed to dismiss the case against those defendants rather than litigate the issue. A default judgment against the remaining defendant was issued in May 2009; the court ordered that defendant to stop using the perezrevenge.com name and to turn the site over to Lavandeira. Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/lavandeira-v-infuse-llc
http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2008/07/perez-hilton-su.html
Complaint: http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/files/PerezComplaint.pdf
http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2009/05/perez-hilton-lawsuit-win-perezrevenge.html
Final default judgment and order: http://reporter.blogs.com/files/judgment.pdf
Cornwell v. Sachs (II), Civil No. 07-236 (E.D. Va. default judgment Nov. 30, 2007).
Status: $35,780 default judgment for plaintiff
In 2000, best selling author Patricia Cornwell obtained a court order enjoining Leslie R. Sachs from posting her name on his web site (see above). But by 2007, Sachs had created new sites (www.patricia-cornwell-biography.net; www.banned-in-america.net; www.dr-les-sachs.be), which alleged that Cornwell’s books were plagiarized from his work, and that Cornwell was corrupt, involved in government intrigue, and was under investigation by federal authorities. Cornwell sued to enforce the earlier order, and for damages for the statements Sachs had posted on his old and new sites. Sachs – who is reportedly living in Belgium – did not respond to the suit, leading to a default judgment against him. The $35,780 amount was based on Cornwell’s expenses creating a web site to counter Sachs’ claims and redirecting links to Sachs’ site, apparently including links from some Google searches, to Cornwell’s site. Despite the judgment, Sachs’ sites remain available online.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2007/06/07/crime_novelist_tries_to_ward_off_internet_attacker/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/24/books.crimebooks
Status: $35,780 default judgment for plaintiff
In 2000, best selling author Patricia Cornwell obtained a court order enjoining Leslie R. Sachs from posting her name on his web site (see above). But by 2007, Sachs had created new sites (www.patricia-cornwell-biography.net; www.banned-in-america.net; www.dr-les-sachs.be), which alleged that Cornwell’s books were plagiarized from his work, and that Cornwell was corrupt, involved in government intrigue, and was under investigation by federal authorities. Cornwell sued to enforce the earlier order, and for damages for the statements Sachs had posted on his old and new sites. Sachs – who is reportedly living in Belgium – did not respond to the suit, leading to a default judgment against him. The $35,780 amount was based on Cornwell’s expenses creating a web site to counter Sachs’ claims and redirecting links to Sachs’ site, apparently including links from some Google searches, to Cornwell’s site. Despite the judgment, Sachs’ sites remain available online.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2007/06/07/crime_novelist_tries_to_ward_off_internet_attacker/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/24/books.crimebooks
Rapacchiano v. Visceglia, No. L-000-238-07 (N.J. Super., Camden County
Status: Settled.
Patrick Rapacchiano sued his co-worker, F. Anthony Visceglia, who owed him money, over postings on his MySpace page and in an online forum calling Rapacchiano a child molester. The defendant initially did not respond to the suit, leading to a default judgment against him. The parties then reached a settlement.
Case Information and Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/rapacchiano-v-visceglia
Complaint: http://journalist101.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/patrick-rapacchiano-plaintiff-vs-anthony-viscegliadefendant-docket-l000238-07nj/
Docket showing settlement: http://courtjustice.blogstream.com/v1/pid/256176.html
Status: Settled.
Patrick Rapacchiano sued his co-worker, F. Anthony Visceglia, who owed him money, over postings on his MySpace page and in an online forum calling Rapacchiano a child molester. The defendant initially did not respond to the suit, leading to a default judgment against him. The parties then reached a settlement.
Case Information and Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/rapacchiano-v-visceglia
Complaint: http://journalist101.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/patrick-rapacchiano-plaintiff-vs-anthony-viscegliadefendant-docket-l000238-07nj/
Docket showing settlement: http://courtjustice.blogstream.com/v1/pid/256176.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)