UPDATE (4/20/2011)
STATUS: Judgment granting defendant's motion for summary judgment was affirmed on April 13, 2011
Tenn. App.: Cult Accusations Lacked Malice, Court Affirms
Courthouse News Service
A Christian weight-loss guru failed to prove that she was defamed by a critic who accused her on the Internet of running a cult, a Tennessee appeals court ruled. Gwen Shamblin, leader of the Remnant Fellowship Church in Brentwood, Tenn., sued Rafael Martinez after he made an allegedly defamatory comment about her on the Celebgalz.com website. . . "We have reviewed the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs and have determined that the record does not contain clear and convincing evidence upon which a trier of fact could find actual malice," Judge Richard Dinkins wrote on behalf of the appeals court.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/04/18/35887.htm
--Opinion: Shamblin v. Martinez
http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/TCA/PDF/112/Gwen%20Shamblin%20et%20al%20v%20Rafael%20Martinez.pdf
See also:
Shamblin v. Anonymous Blogger, No. 06648 (Tenn. Dist. Ct., Williamson County filed Nov. 6, 2006).
Gwen Shamblin and 78 members of the Remnant Fellowship Church that she leads sued an anonymous blogger, and Rafael Martinez, who operates the web site spiritwatch.org, for statements labeling the church as a cult and saying that it advocates starvation and torture of children. In April 2007, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the suit.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=5909117
http://www.wkrn.com/nashville/news/remnant-church-files-defamation-lawsuit/85157.htm
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070315/NEWS01/703150391 Complaint: http://www.spiritwatch.org/shamblie1.pdf
Defendant’s motion to dismiss: http://www.spiritwatch.org/martinezmotion.pdf
Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal: http://www.spiritwatch.org/MartinezNoticeOrder-1.pdf
Spirit Watch statements on the suit: http://www.spiritwatch.org/shamblie2.htm
Showing posts with label Dismissed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dismissed. Show all posts
Righthaven LLC v. Realty One Group Inc.
STATUS: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss granted on Oct. 18, 2010
D.Nev.: Righthaven Loses Lawsuit Against Blogger
MediaPost
A blogger who used eight sentences of a 30-sentence Las Vegas Review-Journal article has prevailed in a lawsuit brought by copyright enforcement outfit Righthaven. U.S. District Court Judge Larry Hicks ruled that realtor Michael Nelson, who also blogs about home ownership, is protected by the fair use doctrine.
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=138060
--Order: Righthaven LLC v. Realty One Group Inc.
http://ia700107.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.74413/gov.uscourts.nvd.74413.17.0.pdf
See also:
--Complaint: Righthaven LLC v. Realty One Group Inc.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35306083/Righthaven-Copyright-Infringement-Complaint-against-Realty-One-Group-Inc-et-al
UPDATE (10/27/10)
D.Nev.: Righthaven Files 2 Copyright Lawsuits, Settles 3
Las Vegas Sun
Two website operators were sued for copyright infringement Tuesday by Righthaven LLC, boosting Righthaven's lawsuit total since March to at least 159.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/oct/27/righthaven-files-2-copyright-lawsuits-settles-3/
--Complaint: Righthaven LLC v. Karban
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/nevada/nvdce/2:2010cv01880/77053/
--Complaint: Righthaven LLC v. The Ad Network, Inc.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/nevada/nvdce/2:2010cv01879/77052/
D.Nev.: Righthaven Loses Lawsuit Against Blogger
MediaPost
A blogger who used eight sentences of a 30-sentence Las Vegas Review-Journal article has prevailed in a lawsuit brought by copyright enforcement outfit Righthaven. U.S. District Court Judge Larry Hicks ruled that realtor Michael Nelson, who also blogs about home ownership, is protected by the fair use doctrine.
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=138060
--Order: Righthaven LLC v. Realty One Group Inc.
http://ia700107.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.74413/gov.uscourts.nvd.74413.17.0.pdf
See also:
--Complaint: Righthaven LLC v. Realty One Group Inc.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35306083/Righthaven-Copyright-Infringement-Complaint-against-Realty-One-Group-Inc-et-al
UPDATE (10/27/10)
D.Nev.: Righthaven Files 2 Copyright Lawsuits, Settles 3
Las Vegas Sun
Two website operators were sued for copyright infringement Tuesday by Righthaven LLC, boosting Righthaven's lawsuit total since March to at least 159.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/oct/27/righthaven-files-2-copyright-lawsuits-settles-3/
--Complaint: Righthaven LLC v. Karban
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/nevada/nvdce/2:2010cv01880/77053/
--Complaint: Righthaven LLC v. The Ad Network, Inc.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/nevada/nvdce/2:2010cv01879/77052/
Xcentric Ventures, LLC v. Bird, No.CV-09-01033-PHX-ROS (D. Ariz. Feb. 4, 2010)
STATUS: DISMISSED.
A lawyer-blogger posted an article analyzing lawsuits against RipOff Report, an internet publication; her article contained at least one error, and Xcentric Ventures (which owns RipOff Report) brought suit alleging defamation and "aiding and abetting" tortious acts by others. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, forcing plaintiffs to prove jurisdiction. To meet their burden, the plaintiffs had to meet the "effects" test established by Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789-90 (1984). The court held that while (1) the defendant had committed an intentional act in publishing the article, (2) it was not expressly aimed at the forum state (and did not consider whether the third factor was met -- whether the act caused harm, the brunt of which is suffered and which the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state). The court considered the second prong most, noting that apart from alleging that Defendants knew Plaintiffs were Arizona residents when the article was published (established only by circumstantial evidence), plaintiffs "did not allege any facts to support a connection between Arizona and the article." In accord with numerous other district courts, the court found that plaintiffs had not met their burden of proving jurisdiction.
Links and court documents
Complaint, filed May 4, 2009
Ripoff Report Sues Blogger, Loses on Jurisdictional Grounds, Technology & Marketing Law Blog, Feb. 12, 2010
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Feb. 4, 2010
A lawyer-blogger posted an article analyzing lawsuits against RipOff Report, an internet publication; her article contained at least one error, and Xcentric Ventures (which owns RipOff Report) brought suit alleging defamation and "aiding and abetting" tortious acts by others. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, forcing plaintiffs to prove jurisdiction. To meet their burden, the plaintiffs had to meet the "effects" test established by Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789-90 (1984). The court held that while (1) the defendant had committed an intentional act in publishing the article, (2) it was not expressly aimed at the forum state (and did not consider whether the third factor was met -- whether the act caused harm, the brunt of which is suffered and which the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state). The court considered the second prong most, noting that apart from alleging that Defendants knew Plaintiffs were Arizona residents when the article was published (established only by circumstantial evidence), plaintiffs "did not allege any facts to support a connection between Arizona and the article." In accord with numerous other district courts, the court found that plaintiffs had not met their burden of proving jurisdiction.
Links and court documents
Complaint, filed May 4, 2009
Ripoff Report Sues Blogger, Loses on Jurisdictional Grounds, Technology & Marketing Law Blog, Feb. 12, 2010
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, Feb. 4, 2010
Nemet Chevy v. Consumeraffairs.com, No. 08-2097, 2009 WL 5126224 (4th Cir. Dec. 29, 2009)
STATUS: Dismissed.
Nemet Chevrolet brought suit against Consumeraffairs.com for defamation, alleging that certain posts (uploaded by third parties) defamed Nemet. The defendants argued that they were entitled to s.230 immunity, and the district court agreed. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the plaintiff's well-pled allegations left no more than "the mere possibility" that Consumeraffairs.com was responsible for the creation or development of the content at issue.
Links and court documents
Decision from the Fourth Circuit
Consumer Review Website Wins 230 Dismissal in Fourth Circuit, Technology & Marketing Law Blog, Dec. 29, 2009
Nemet v. Consumeraffairs.com, Citizen Media Law Project
[hyperlinked title], Publication, Date
Nemet Chevrolet brought suit against Consumeraffairs.com for defamation, alleging that certain posts (uploaded by third parties) defamed Nemet. The defendants argued that they were entitled to s.230 immunity, and the district court agreed. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the plaintiff's well-pled allegations left no more than "the mere possibility" that Consumeraffairs.com was responsible for the creation or development of the content at issue.
Links and court documents
Decision from the Fourth Circuit
Consumer Review Website Wins 230 Dismissal in Fourth Circuit, Technology & Marketing Law Blog, Dec. 29, 2009
Nemet v. Consumeraffairs.com, Citizen Media Law Project
[hyperlinked title], Publication, Date
Devenyns v. Albero, No. 22C09001273 (Md. Cir. Ct., Wicomico County filed July 24, 2009).
Status: Summary judgment motion pending.
Wicomico County Detention Center director Douglas Devenyns sued Joseph Albero over an anonymous comment posted on his Salisbury News blog site (sbynews.com) claiming that Devenyns is a "sexual predator," who shortened the sentences of female inmates who had sex with him.
While Albero would normally be exempt from liability for comments posted to his site by others under section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, the suit claims that Albero lost this protection by selecting which comments submitted to the site would and would not be posted.
On Nov. 30, 2009, the court granted Albero's motion for summary judgment.
Links and Court Documents:
Detention Center director sues blogger (DelMarVa Now, July 30, 2009)
Detention Center director's lawsuit against blogger dismissed (DelMarVa Now,Dec. 1, 2009)
Status: Summary judgment motion pending.
Wicomico County Detention Center director Douglas Devenyns sued Joseph Albero over an anonymous comment posted on his Salisbury News blog site (sbynews.com) claiming that Devenyns is a "sexual predator," who shortened the sentences of female inmates who had sex with him.
While Albero would normally be exempt from liability for comments posted to his site by others under section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, the suit claims that Albero lost this protection by selecting which comments submitted to the site would and would not be posted.
On Nov. 30, 2009, the court granted Albero's motion for summary judgment.
Links and Court Documents:
Detention Center director sues blogger (DelMarVa Now, July 30, 2009)
Detention Center director's lawsuit against blogger dismissed (DelMarVa Now,Dec. 1, 2009)
Robinson v. Albero, No. 0203SP009122009 (Md. Cir. Ct., Wicomico County filed Nov. 10, 2009)
Status: Dismissed
The owner of Robinson's Jewelry and Clock Store in Salisbury, Md. filed to obtain a peace order against blogger Joe Albero, over postings on his Salisbury News blog site (sbynews.com). The court dismissed the petition at a Nov. 25 hearing.
On Nov. 17, Robinson filed a civil suit over the postings.
Links and Court Documents:
Lawsuit accompanies charges against blogger (DelmarvaNow!, Nov. 19, 2009).
Peace order against blogger dismissed (DelmarvaNow!, Nov. 26, 2009).
Status: Dismissed
The owner of Robinson's Jewelry and Clock Store in Salisbury, Md. filed to obtain a peace order against blogger Joe Albero, over postings on his Salisbury News blog site (sbynews.com). The court dismissed the petition at a Nov. 25 hearing.
On Nov. 17, Robinson filed a civil suit over the postings.
Links and Court Documents:
Lawsuit accompanies charges against blogger (DelmarvaNow!, Nov. 19, 2009).
Peace order against blogger dismissed (DelmarvaNow!, Nov. 26, 2009).
Bauer v. Glatzer, No MON-L-07-1169 (N.J. Super. filed 2007). Bauer v. Glatzer, Civil No. 07-04501 (D.N.J. removed from state court Sept. 20, 2007; remanded). Status: Pending.
A literary agent sued 15 individual bloggers, as well as the Wikipedia Foundation and the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America organization, over various postings challenging her ability and ethics.
On July 21, the state court dismissed the claims against Wikipedia, under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Claims against at least five of the blogger defendants were later dismissed from the case.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/free_speech_on_internet_at_iss.html
Second amended complaint: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/wikimedia/BauerSecondAmendedComplaint.pdf
Dismissal of Wikipedia: http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2008-07-21-Bauer%20Order%20Dismissing%20Second%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf
A literary agent sued 15 individual bloggers, as well as the Wikipedia Foundation and the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America organization, over various postings challenging her ability and ethics.
On July 21, the state court dismissed the claims against Wikipedia, under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Claims against at least five of the blogger defendants were later dismissed from the case.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/free_speech_on_internet_at_iss.html
Second amended complaint: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/wikimedia/BauerSecondAmendedComplaint.pdf
Dismissal of Wikipedia: http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2008-07-21-Bauer%20Order%20Dismissing%20Second%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf
Higher Balance, LLC v. Quantum Future Group, Inc., Civil No. 08-233 (D.Ore. filed Feb. 25, 2008).
Status: Dismissed (Dec. 18, 2008).
Eric J. Pepin, founder of the Higher Balance Institute, sued Laura Knight-Jadczyk and her company for postings on her blog site "Signs of the Times" (www.sott.net), that alleged that his organization was a "front for pedophelia." Pepin was tried on charges of having sex with an underage employee; he was acquitted in 2007 because prosecutors could not provde the young man was underage.
In Decemeber 2008, the federal court dismissed the libel suit under Oregon's anti-SLAPP law. In August 2009, the court awarded the defendants $51,500.00 in attorney fees.
Links and Case Documents:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/hillsboroargus/2008/03/socalled_psychic_files_suit_ag.html
Status: Dismissed (Dec. 18, 2008).
Eric J. Pepin, founder of the Higher Balance Institute, sued Laura Knight-Jadczyk and her company for postings on her blog site "Signs of the Times" (www.sott.net), that alleged that his organization was a "front for pedophelia." Pepin was tried on charges of having sex with an underage employee; he was acquitted in 2007 because prosecutors could not provde the young man was underage.
In Decemeber 2008, the federal court dismissed the libel suit under Oregon's anti-SLAPP law. In August 2009, the court awarded the defendants $51,500.00 in attorney fees.
Links and Case Documents:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/hillsboroargus/2008/03/socalled_psychic_files_suit_ag.html
Mink v. Salazar, Civil No. 04-B-23, 344 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Colo. dismissed Oct. 26, 2004), aff’d, Mink v. Dominguez, No. 04-1496, 482 F.3d 1244, 35 Media L. Rep. 1838 (10th Cir. April 16, 2007), reh’g en banc denied (10th Cir. July 19, 2007), cert. denied, Knox v. Mink, No. 07-516, 128 S.Ct. 1122, 169 L.Ed.2d 949 (U.S. Jan. 22, 2008).
Status: Dismissal affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Thomas Mink brought a civil suit challenging the constitutionality ofColorado
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.aclu-co.org/docket/200320/200320_description.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-01-20-howling-legal_x.htm
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=12451
http://www.greeleytrib.com/article/20050405/NEWS/104050057&SearchID=7322286462859
http://www.splc.org/newsflash_archives.asp?id=1160&year=2006
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1672
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1789
Initial trial court dismissal: http://www.aclu-co.org/docket/200320/200320_Ruling_dismissing_case_10-26-04.pdf
Appellate decision: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/04/04-1496.pdf
U.S. Supreme Court docket: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-516.htm
Status: Dismissal affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Thomas Mink brought a civil suit challenging the constitutionality of
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.aclu-co.org/docket/200320/200320_description.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-01-20-howling-legal_x.htm
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=12451
http://www.greeleytrib.com/article/20050405/NEWS/104050057&SearchID=7322286462859
http://www.splc.org/newsflash_archives.asp?id=1160&year=2006
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1672
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1789
Initial trial court dismissal: http://www.aclu-co.org/docket/200320/200320_Ruling_dismissing_case_10-26-04.pdf
Appellate decision: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/04/04-1496.pdf
U.S. Supreme Court docket: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-516.htm
Steinbach v. Cutler, Civil No. 06-00620 (E.D. Ark. filed May 16, 2006).
Status: Claims against most defendants dismissed; dismissal of claims against Hyperion Books reversed; pending.
In addition to his suit in the District of Columbia, in May 2006 Robert Steinbach filed a separate suit over the book, The Washingtonienne, a novel based on Jessica Culter’s “Washingtonienne” blog (http://washingtonienne.blogspot.com; no longer existent, but archived at http://washingtoniennearchive.blogspot.com/). The court dismissed the suit on jurisdictional grounds on Feb. 7, 2007. On appeal, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal against most of the defendants, but reversed dismissal of the claims against Hyperion Books. The case against Hyperion is pending.
Links and Court Documents:
Appeals decision: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/08/03/071509P.pdf
Status: Claims against most defendants dismissed; dismissal of claims against Hyperion Books reversed; pending.
In addition to his suit in the District of Columbia, in May 2006 Robert Steinbach filed a separate suit over the book, The Washingtonienne, a novel based on Jessica Culter’s “Washingtonienne” blog (http://washingtonienne.blogspot.com; no longer existent, but archived at http://washingtoniennearchive.blogspot.com/). The court dismissed the suit on jurisdictional grounds on Feb. 7, 2007. On appeal, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal against most of the defendants, but reversed dismissal of the claims against Hyperion Books. The case against Hyperion is pending.
Links and Court Documents:
Appeals decision: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/08/03/071509P.pdf
Kruska v. Perverted Justice Foundation, No. 2:08-cv-00054 (D. Arizona
Status: Dismissed; appeal dismissed, No. 09-15426 (9th Cir. mandate May 21, 2009).
After journalist Jan Kruska expressed her opinion on the over breadth of anti-pedophile laws, several websites, including www.jankruska.com and www.jankruska.net, (both registered through defendant GoDaddy.com), posted allegations that Kruska was herself a convicted pedophile and child molester.
Kruska filed a complaint alleging both state and federal tort and criminal actions against these websites and several affiliated individuals, including Barbara Ochoa, who Kruska claims threatened her if she did not remover her “entire web presence.”
The court granted Ochoa’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed the claims against GoDaddy.com under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Kruska appealed, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal.
Links and Court Documents:
www.citmedialaw.org/threats/kruska-v-perverted-justice-foundation
Complaint: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2008cv00054/366532/1/
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/07/godaddy_gets_23.htm
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200902/arizona-district-court-rules-website-targeting-plaintiff-does-not-crea
Order granting motion to dismiss by GoDaddy.com and defendant Bob Parsons: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200902/arizona-district-court-rules-website-targeting-plaintiff-does-not-crea
Status: Dismissed; appeal dismissed, No. 09-15426 (9th Cir. mandate May 21, 2009).
After journalist Jan Kruska expressed her opinion on the over breadth of anti-pedophile laws, several websites, including www.jankruska.com and www.jankruska.net, (both registered through defendant GoDaddy.com), posted allegations that Kruska was herself a convicted pedophile and child molester.
Kruska filed a complaint alleging both state and federal tort and criminal actions against these websites and several affiliated individuals, including Barbara Ochoa, who Kruska claims threatened her if she did not remover her “entire web presence.”
The court granted Ochoa’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed the claims against GoDaddy.com under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Kruska appealed, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal.
Links and Court Documents:
www.citmedialaw.org/threats/kruska-v-perverted-justice-foundation
Complaint: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/2:2008cv00054/366532/1/
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/07/godaddy_gets_23.htm
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200902/arizona-district-court-rules-website-targeting-plaintiff-does-not-crea
Order granting motion to dismiss by GoDaddy.com and defendant Bob Parsons: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packet/200902/arizona-district-court-rules-website-targeting-plaintiff-does-not-crea
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
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
CRIMINAL CASE: U.S. v. White, Crim. No. 08-851 (N.D. Ill. 2008).
Status: Charges dismissed (N.D. Ill. July 21, 2009).
William White was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 373, "Solicitation to commit a crime of violence," after he posted on his website (www.overthrow.com; now defunct) the name, home address, phone numbers, and other personal information of the foreperson of the jury that convicted white supremacist leader Matthew Hale for soliciting the murder of a federal judge.
While the postings about the jury foreperson did not explicitly call for violence, the indictment also cited other postings to the site giving detailed personal information about other individuals involved in civil rights disputes and cases which did explicitly called for violence against the individuals named.
The court granted White's motion to dismiss the charges, ruling that because his postings did not advocate harm to the jury foreperson, prosecution under the statute would violate the First Amendment.
Separate charges against White in federal court in Virginia were not affected by this ruling.
Links and Court Documents:
Charge against Roanoke neo-Nazi leader Bill White dismissed, Roanoke Times, July 22, 2009
>> Ruling dismissing charges
Status: Charges dismissed (N.D. Ill. July 21, 2009).
William White was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 373, "Solicitation to commit a crime of violence," after he posted on his website (www.overthrow.com; now defunct) the name, home address, phone numbers, and other personal information of the foreperson of the jury that convicted white supremacist leader Matthew Hale for soliciting the murder of a federal judge.
While the postings about the jury foreperson did not explicitly call for violence, the indictment also cited other postings to the site giving detailed personal information about other individuals involved in civil rights disputes and cases which did explicitly called for violence against the individuals named.
The court granted White's motion to dismiss the charges, ruling that because his postings did not advocate harm to the jury foreperson, prosecution under the statute would violate the First Amendment.
Separate charges against White in federal court in Virginia were not affected by this ruling.
Links and Court Documents:
Charge against Roanoke neo-Nazi leader Bill White dismissed, Roanoke Times, July 22, 2009
>> Ruling dismissing charges
Duer v. Henderson, No. ____ (Ohio C.P., Miami County default verdict April 13, 2009).
Status: $129,794 default verdict for plaintiff
Melissa Duer, owner of the historic Staley Mill northeast of Dayton, Ohio, sued over statements in the book "Weird Ohio" and the Forgotten Ohio website (http://www.forgottenoh.com/) that the mill was haunted. In her suit, Duer said that the claims had put her and her family in a false light and intentionally caused them emotional distress. Duer also claimed that the statements led to people trespassing on the property, requiring her to get a guard dog and hire private security. The court dismissed the claims over the book, which Duer said she would appeal. But the owner of the website, Andrew Henderson, did not appear and a default judgment was entered. In addition to the award, which included expenses Duer alleged for security, alleged diminished value of the property, and attorney fees and litigation costs, the court also ordered Henderson to remove references to the mill from his site, and barred him from posting such references on any other website.
On Dec. 23, an appellate court in Ohio found that the trial court correctly found that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to Duer's claim for trespass to land. 2009 WL 4985475.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2009/03/19/ddn031909hauntedsuitweb.html
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/website-ordered-to-pay-125000-over-haunted-mill-claim-83396.html
http://www.themoneytimes.com/20090417/woman-wins-haunted-mill-lawsuit-id-1064179.html
Status: $129,794 default verdict for plaintiff
Melissa Duer, owner of the historic Staley Mill northeast of Dayton, Ohio, sued over statements in the book "Weird Ohio" and the Forgotten Ohio website (http://www.forgottenoh.com/) that the mill was haunted. In her suit, Duer said that the claims had put her and her family in a false light and intentionally caused them emotional distress. Duer also claimed that the statements led to people trespassing on the property, requiring her to get a guard dog and hire private security. The court dismissed the claims over the book, which Duer said she would appeal. But the owner of the website, Andrew Henderson, did not appear and a default judgment was entered. In addition to the award, which included expenses Duer alleged for security, alleged diminished value of the property, and attorney fees and litigation costs, the court also ordered Henderson to remove references to the mill from his site, and barred him from posting such references on any other website.
On Dec. 23, an appellate court in Ohio found that the trial court correctly found that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to Duer's claim for trespass to land. 2009 WL 4985475.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2009/03/19/ddn031909hauntedsuitweb.html
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/website-ordered-to-pay-125000-over-haunted-mill-claim-83396.html
http://www.themoneytimes.com/20090417/woman-wins-haunted-mill-lawsuit-id-1064179.html
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
Fulbright & Jaworski v. EarthLink Legal Dept., No. 07-MI-0097 (N.D. Ga.
Status: Dismissed.
In an effort pursue copyright claims against an anonymous blogger who posted several questions from the 2006 Multistate Bar Examination on the “Tab and Brandy” blog (tabandbrandy.blogspot.com; now removed), the organization that creates the exam (the National Conference of Bar Examiners) subpoenaed Google (owner of the Blogger service that hosted the blog) to obtain the blogger’s IP address. After obtaining the address, the conference’s law firm filed suit against Earthlink, identified through the IP address as the blogger’s Internet service provider, to identify the blogger. The case was dismissed the same day it was filed; it is unclear whether Eartlink provided the information.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/national-conference-bar-examiners-v-earthlink
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1176973462175
Status: Dismissed.
In an effort pursue copyright claims against an anonymous blogger who posted several questions from the 2006 Multistate Bar Examination on the “Tab and Brandy” blog (tabandbrandy.blogspot.com; now removed), the organization that creates the exam (the National Conference of Bar Examiners) subpoenaed Google (owner of the Blogger service that hosted the blog) to obtain the blogger’s IP address. After obtaining the address, the conference’s law firm filed suit against Earthlink, identified through the IP address as the blogger’s Internet service provider, to identify the blogger. The case was dismissed the same day it was filed; it is unclear whether Eartlink provided the information.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/national-conference-bar-examiners-v-earthlink
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1176973462175
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
Evans v. Bayer, Civil No. 08-61952 (S.D. Fla.
Status: Motion to dismiss pending.
Katherine Evans was suspended for three days from Pembroke Pines Charter high school in November 2007 after she created a Facebook page that criticized one of her teachers as “the worst teacher she had ever had,” and solicited comments about the teacher. Evans’ site received three comments supporting the teacher, and she removed the page. A defense motion to dismiss, filed in March 2009, is pending.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1845
ACLU press release: http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=3689
Complaint: http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/evans_complaint.pdf
Status: Motion to dismiss pending.
Katherine Evans was suspended for three days from Pembroke Pines Charter high school in November 2007 after she created a Facebook page that criticized one of her teachers as “the worst teacher she had ever had,” and solicited comments about the teacher. Evans’ site received three comments supporting the teacher, and she removed the page. A defense motion to dismiss, filed in March 2009, is pending.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1845
ACLU press release: http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/?action=viewRelease&emailAlertID=3689
Complaint: http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/evans_complaint.pdf
Cahill v. Doe, No. 04C-011-022 (Del.
Status: Dismissed with prejudice, Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del.
After viewing negative comments posted by an anonymous commenter on the Smyrna/Clayton Issues Blog, City Councilman Patrick Cahill filed a John Doe lawsuit and obtained a court order to compel Comcast to identify the poster. On appeal the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a trial court decision that used a good faith standard to deny Doe’s request for an emergency protection order. In dismissing the case with prejudice, the Supreme Court held that before an anonymous commenter could be identified the plaintiff had to provide evidence to support each element of his claim to an extent that created triable issues of fact. This case was the first time a state’s high court had addressed the issue of the rights of an anonymous blog commenter.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20051007151046741
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/cahill-v-doe
Appellant Brief: http://www.cyberslapp.org/documents/CahillvDoeAppBriefasfiled.pdf
Amicus Brief: http://www.scribd.com/doc/275487/00882doe-v-cahill-amicus
Order dismissing case: http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/(idavx455jyc4ibyb1g20bb45)/download.aspx?ID=67130
Status: Dismissed with prejudice, Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (
After viewing negative comments posted by an anonymous commenter on the Smyrna/Clayton Issues Blog, City Councilman Patrick Cahill filed a John Doe lawsuit and obtained a court order to compel Comcast to identify the poster. On appeal the Delaware Supreme Court reversed a trial court decision that used a good faith standard to deny Doe’s request for an emergency protection order. In dismissing the case with prejudice, the Supreme Court held that before an anonymous commenter could be identified the plaintiff had to provide evidence to support each element of his claim to an extent that created triable issues of fact. This case was the first time a state’s high court had addressed the issue of the rights of an anonymous blog commenter.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20051007151046741
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/cahill-v-doe
Appellant Brief: http://www.cyberslapp.org/documents/CahillvDoeAppBriefasfiled.pdf
Amicus Brief: http://www.scribd.com/doc/275487/00882doe-v-cahill-amicus
Order dismissing case: http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/(idavx455jyc4ibyb1g20bb45)/download.aspx?ID=67130
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)