UPDATE (2/26/15)
STATUS: Appeals Court will not throw out defamation case.
Cal.App.:Courtney Love Fails to Get Appeals Court to Dispense Defamation Lawsuit
The Hollywood Reporter
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/courtney-love-fails-get-an-778048?mobile_redirect=false
Order: http://www.scribd.com/doc/257057866/Courtney-Love
UPDATE (3/3/2011)
STATUS: Settlement reached on Feb 3rd, 2011
Courtney Love to Pay $430,000 to Settle Twitter Defamation Case
The Hollywood Reporter
Rocker Courtney Love has settled the lawsuit brought against her by a fashion designer who claims she was defamed in a series of messages posted on Twitter. The settlement with Dawn Simorangkir (aka the “Boudior Queen”), which sources say is being finalized today and will be announced next week, will cost Love about $430,000.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/thr-esq/courtney-love-pay-430000-settle-163919
UPDATE (1/10/2011)
STATUS: Trial scheduled to commence on Feb 8th, 2011
Courtney Love Twitter Trial Moved to February
The Hollywood Reporter
Lawyers for Love and fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir—who is suing the rocker over a March 2009 tirade of Tweets in which Love called the self-proclaimed "Boudoir Queen" a prostitute and a thief—were in the Los Angeles courtroom of Hon. Debre Weintraub this morning for the final status conference in the case. The trial date, which was to have been on Jan 18, has been pushed to Feb 8 for scheduling purposes. The trial is expected to last at least a week.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/thr-esq/courtney-love-twitter-trial-moved-68744
See also:
OMG! Twitter Trial Looks GTG*
Blog Law Online (Eric P. Robinson)
. . . If there is no pre-trial settlement, this would apparently be the first defamation trial in U.S. based on comments posted on Twitter. While this would be the first defamation case involving what could arguably be considered a new medium, the standard requirements in a libel case will apply: that is, Simorangkir will have to show that Love's Tweeted comments would have been reasonably understood to disparage Simorangkir, and that Simorangkir actually suffered damages as a result.
http://bloglawonline.blogspot.com/2011/01/omg-twitter-trial-looks-gtg.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Simorangkir v. Love, No. BC410593 (Cal. Super. filed March 26, 2009).
Status: Pending
Clothing designer Dawn Simorangkir sued singer Courtney Love for postings on Love’s blog (http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendId=165705423) and Twitter account disparaging Simorangkir, from whom she expressed an interest in buying clothing, after they had a falling out.
Love responded in August 2009 with a motion to dismiss under California's anti-SLAPP law, which was denied in October.
Links and Case Documents:
Designer sues Courtney Love over web rants (Malaysian Insider, March 28, 2009)
Courtney Love's Crazy MySpace Posts Earn Her a Lawsuit (Cleveland Leader, March 29, 2009)
Love Loses Bid to Throw Out Defamation Case (Contact Music, Oct. 27, 2009)
Judge Allows Twitter-Libel Suit Against Rocker Love (On Point News, Oct. 27. 2009)
Complaint
Special motion to dismiss (anti-SLAPP motion)
Showing posts with label Pending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pending. Show all posts
Meyers v. Tempesta
CEO Says Sailing Website Smeared Him
Courthouse News Service
The owners of sailinganarchy.com, the self-proclaimed "largest sailing site on the net," defamed a CEO and philanthropist by calling him a "grifter" and a "white collar criminal who stole millions," the businessman claims in Superior Court. He describes the website as "the National Enquirer of the sailing world."
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/09/29425.htm
-- Complaint, Meyers v. Tempesta: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/09/Sailing.pdf
Courthouse News Service
The owners of sailinganarchy.com, the self-proclaimed "largest sailing site on the net," defamed a CEO and philanthropist by calling him a "grifter" and a "white collar criminal who stole millions," the businessman claims in Superior Court. He describes the website as "the National Enquirer of the sailing world."
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/09/29425.htm
-- Complaint, Meyers v. Tempesta: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/09/Sailing.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
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
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
Apex Tech. Group, Inc. v. John Doe(s) 1-10, No. MID-L-7879-09 (N.J. Super. Ct., filed Dec. 23, 2009)
Status: Pending
A staffing and consulting services company ("Apex") brought suit against three websites -- http://www.endh1b.com/, http://www.itgrunt.com/, http://www.guestworkerfraud.com/ -- that allegedly posted defamatory comments about Apex, calling it a "bodyshop" and accusing it of engaging in bad practices while staffing H1-B workers from India. (The H1-B is a visa that allows American employers to use foreign workers in specialty occupations.) After the plaintiff filed an order to show cause, the court ordered Comcast, Yahoo!, and Facebook to turn over all documents relating to the identity of the owners of the websites. The court also enjoined the three websites, ordering them to remove all postings and references to the plaintiff. Finally, the court ordered discountASP.net, GoDaddy.com, and Domains by Proxy, Inc. to shut down and disable the websites "until further notice of this Court."
Links and court documents:- Order shutting down websites, filed Dec. 23, 2009
- H1B spat unites activities, xenophobes against common enemy, Ars Technica, Dec. 30, 2009
- Order to Shut Down Websites Critical of Apex Technology Group is Dangerous and Wrong, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Jan. 7, 2010
- Get to Work: Court order shuts web sites over H1-B fracas, San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 11, 2010
- Determining the Proper Scope of Prior Restraints against Blogs in Defamation Cases, JOLT Digest, May 11, 2010
A staffing and consulting services company ("Apex") brought suit against three websites -- http://www.endh1b.com/, http://www.itgrunt.com/, http://www.guestworkerfraud.com/ -- that allegedly posted defamatory comments about Apex, calling it a "bodyshop" and accusing it of engaging in bad practices while staffing H1-B workers from India. (The H1-B is a visa that allows American employers to use foreign workers in specialty occupations.) After the plaintiff filed an order to show cause, the court ordered Comcast, Yahoo!, and Facebook to turn over all documents relating to the identity of the owners of the websites. The court also enjoined the three websites, ordering them to remove all postings and references to the plaintiff. Finally, the court ordered discountASP.net, GoDaddy.com, and Domains by Proxy, Inc. to shut down and disable the websites "until further notice of this Court."
Links and court documents:- Order shutting down websites, filed Dec. 23, 2009
- H1B spat unites activities, xenophobes against common enemy, Ars Technica, Dec. 30, 2009
- Order to Shut Down Websites Critical of Apex Technology Group is Dangerous and Wrong, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Jan. 7, 2010
- Get to Work: Court order shuts web sites over H1-B fracas, San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 11, 2010
- Determining the Proper Scope of Prior Restraints against Blogs in Defamation Cases, JOLT Digest, May 11, 2010
Freeman v. Swift, No. 27CV089585 (Minn. Ct. App., filed Dec. 29, 2009)
Status: Pending.
When a nonprofit corporation that operated a juvenile sex-offender treatment facility (named "Nexus") announced plans for the facility's relocation, a number of people had objections to the relocation plans. One of these people was Janette J. Swift, the founder and leader of a citizen-based group that attended numerous meetings and presented petitions to government bodies involved. Swift communicated with her state representatives, was quoted in news articles, and also established a website and blog.
On Swift's blog, she alleged that the CEO of the facility, James D'Angelo, had made "death threats," and also made derogatory comments about his character while responding to false reports about D'Angelo's suicide. She also e-mailed the supervisor of Peter Freeman, a voluntary board member of the Nexus facility, stating that her e-mail concerned "one of your faculty members who is engaging in unethical, immoral, and possibly even illegal behavior," and sought the supervisor's help in ending Freeman's activities with regard to Nexus. D'Angelo and Freeman brought suit, alleging defamation.
Initially, Swift sought to dismiss the lawsuit under the local anti-SLAPP law, Minn. Stat. s. 554.02, subd. 2(3) (2008); she argued she was immune to liability because her statements constituted "public participation." The lower court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the statements were not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action, and that the plaintiffs had provided "clear and convincing" proof that her statements constituted defmation, which was exempted under the statute. On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed that Swift's speech was not aimed at procuring favorable government action, but rather aimed at creating ill will toward Freeman and D'Angelo. The court declined to address whether the plaintiffs had provided "clear and convincing" proof that her statements constituted defamation.
This was the first case in Minnesota to consider what constitutes "public participation" under the statute.
Links and court documents
Court rejects blogger's anti-SLAPP defense, Courthouse News Service, Jan. 8, 2010
Dec. 2009 opinion, affirming denial of Swift's motion to dismiss
When a nonprofit corporation that operated a juvenile sex-offender treatment facility (named "Nexus") announced plans for the facility's relocation, a number of people had objections to the relocation plans. One of these people was Janette J. Swift, the founder and leader of a citizen-based group that attended numerous meetings and presented petitions to government bodies involved. Swift communicated with her state representatives, was quoted in news articles, and also established a website and blog.
On Swift's blog, she alleged that the CEO of the facility, James D'Angelo, had made "death threats," and also made derogatory comments about his character while responding to false reports about D'Angelo's suicide. She also e-mailed the supervisor of Peter Freeman, a voluntary board member of the Nexus facility, stating that her e-mail concerned "one of your faculty members who is engaging in unethical, immoral, and possibly even illegal behavior," and sought the supervisor's help in ending Freeman's activities with regard to Nexus. D'Angelo and Freeman brought suit, alleging defamation.
Initially, Swift sought to dismiss the lawsuit under the local anti-SLAPP law, Minn. Stat. s. 554.02, subd. 2(3) (2008); she argued she was immune to liability because her statements constituted "public participation." The lower court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the statements were not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action, and that the plaintiffs had provided "clear and convincing" proof that her statements constituted defmation, which was exempted under the statute. On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed that Swift's speech was not aimed at procuring favorable government action, but rather aimed at creating ill will toward Freeman and D'Angelo. The court declined to address whether the plaintiffs had provided "clear and convincing" proof that her statements constituted defamation.
This was the first case in Minnesota to consider what constitutes "public participation" under the statute.
Links and court documents
Court rejects blogger's anti-SLAPP defense, Courthouse News Service, Jan. 8, 2010
Dec. 2009 opinion, affirming denial of Swift's motion to dismiss
NAPW, Inc. v. Google, No. ___ (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed Dec. __, 2009)
Status: Pending
A national women's group, NAPW, and its president sought an injunction as well as damages arising from misappropriation of their names for trade and advertising purposes, as well as defamation. They brought suit against Google and various Doe defendants because four blogs operated by Google services allegedly defamed the plaintiffs. They sought an injunction to order Google to remove and delete the offending posts "pending resolution through trial," as well as to disclose information for the Doe defendants. The four defamatory posts, as listed in the complaint, are:
- http://knol.google.com/k/national-association-of-professional-women-napw-scam
- ed-tech-axis.blogspot.com/2009/01/national-association-of-professional.html
- lopezhome.blogspot.com
- http://womenworksmart.blogspot.com/2008/08/watch-out-for-scams-attacking-new.html
As of January 6, all offending posts were still available.
Links and court documents:
Bloggers Defamed Women's Group, Says Suit, Courthouse News Service, Dec. 31, 2009
Complaint
See also:
NAPW, Inc. v. East Cooper Entrepreneurial Women
A national women's group, NAPW, and its president sought an injunction as well as damages arising from misappropriation of their names for trade and advertising purposes, as well as defamation. They brought suit against Google and various Doe defendants because four blogs operated by Google services allegedly defamed the plaintiffs. They sought an injunction to order Google to remove and delete the offending posts "pending resolution through trial," as well as to disclose information for the Doe defendants. The four defamatory posts, as listed in the complaint, are:
- http://knol.google.com/k/national-association-of-professional-women-napw-scam
- ed-tech-axis.blogspot.com/2009/01/national-association-of-professional.html
- lopezhome.blogspot.com
- http://womenworksmart.blogspot.com/2008/08/watch-out-for-scams-attacking-new.html
As of January 6, all offending posts were still available.
Links and court documents:
Bloggers Defamed Women's Group, Says Suit, Courthouse News Service, Dec. 31, 2009
Complaint
See also:
NAPW, Inc. v. East Cooper Entrepreneurial Women
NAPW, Inc. v. East Cooper Entrepreneurial Women, No. ____ (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. __, 2009)
Status: Pending
A women's group sought an injunction from New York Supreme Court in order to have an offending blog post removed. The group, NAPW, Inc., claimed that a blog post by a competing organization ECEW, defamed it by calling NAPW a "scam." They also claimed that ECEW's post "attracted further defamatory posts, for which ECEW is liable."
Links and Court Documents
Bloggers Defamed Women's Group, Says Suit, Courthouse News Service, Dec. 31, 2009
Complaint: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/31/NAPW2
See also:
NAPW, Inc. v. Google
A women's group sought an injunction from New York Supreme Court in order to have an offending blog post removed. The group, NAPW, Inc., claimed that a blog post by a competing organization ECEW, defamed it by calling NAPW a "scam." They also claimed that ECEW's post "attracted further defamatory posts, for which ECEW is liable."
Links and Court Documents
Bloggers Defamed Women's Group, Says Suit, Courthouse News Service, Dec. 31, 2009
Complaint: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/31/NAPW2
See also:
NAPW, Inc. v. Google
Siegal v. Kardashian, No. 09-93439 CA 15 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Dec. 29, 2009)
Status: Pending
Dr. Siegal's Cookie Diet website has a page that links to news articles and press mentions of the diet. Several of these links suggested that Kim Kardashian was a fan of the diet. In October 2009, she took it upon herself to Tweet that she thought the diet was "unhealthy" and that the company was lying. On Dec. 25, her lawyers sent the site a cease and desist letter, asking that references to Kardashian be taken down.
Dr. Siegal brought suit Dec. 29, alleging that both the doctor and his company were defamed by the Tweets.
As of Jan. 6, 2010, there are no links on The Cookie Diet site to Kardashian.
Case information and links:
Complaint, filed Dec. 28, 2009
Kim Kardashian Sued for Twitter Defamation, THR, Esq., Jan. 4, 2010
Kim K: I'm Being Used by a Cookie Monster, TMZ.com, Dec. 25, 2009
Siegal v. Kardashian, Citizen Media Law Project,
Dr. Siegal's Cookie Diet website has a page that links to news articles and press mentions of the diet. Several of these links suggested that Kim Kardashian was a fan of the diet. In October 2009, she took it upon herself to Tweet that she thought the diet was "unhealthy" and that the company was lying. On Dec. 25, her lawyers sent the site a cease and desist letter, asking that references to Kardashian be taken down.
Dr. Siegal brought suit Dec. 29, alleging that both the doctor and his company were defamed by the Tweets.
As of Jan. 6, 2010, there are no links on The Cookie Diet site to Kardashian.
Case information and links:
Complaint, filed Dec. 28, 2009
Kim Kardashian Sued for Twitter Defamation, THR, Esq., Jan. 4, 2010
Kim K: I'm Being Used by a Cookie Monster, TMZ.com, Dec. 25, 2009
Siegal v. Kardashian, Citizen Media Law Project,
CRIMINAL CASE: U.S. v. White, Crim. No. 08-00054 (W.D. Va.. 2008).
Status: Conviction on four of seven counts.
Although similar charges in Illinois federal court were dismissed, neo-Nazi leader William White was separately charged with several crimes stemming from alleged threats that he sent via e-mail and posted on his website (www.overthrow.com; now defunct).
The court denied a motion to dismiss the claims on First Amendment grounds on Dec. 3, 2009, and the trial began the following week.
After a eight-day trial, the jury convicted White on four counts, involving threats to a Citibank employee from Missouri, an administrator at the University of Delaware, a human rights lawyer from Canada and two tenants of an apartment complex in Virginia Beach. The jury acquitted White on two counts alleging threats against nationally syndicated Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts, and the former mayor of South Harrison township, N.J. It also acquitted White on a charge that the threats against the Citibank employee were made with intent to extort.
White could be sentenced to as much as 35 years in prison.
Links and Court Documents:
Leader of American National Socialist Workers Party Indicted, U.S. Dept. of Justice (press release), Dec. 11, 2008 (pdf)
Dismissed charges in Chicago might not affect Roanoke case, Roanoke Times, July 26, 2009.
Trial could have anonymous jury, Roanoke Times, Nov. 26, 2009.
Judge: White trial will proceed, Roanoke Times, Dec. 3, 2009.
Neo-Nazi White's trial begins today, Roanoke Times, Dec. 9, 2009.
U.S. v. William White trial blog, Roanoke Times
Jury finds White guilty on 4 counts, Roanoke Times, Dec. 19, 2009.
Status: Conviction on four of seven counts.
Although similar charges in Illinois federal court were dismissed, neo-Nazi leader William White was separately charged with several crimes stemming from alleged threats that he sent via e-mail and posted on his website (www.overthrow.com; now defunct).
The court denied a motion to dismiss the claims on First Amendment grounds on Dec. 3, 2009, and the trial began the following week.
After a eight-day trial, the jury convicted White on four counts, involving threats to a Citibank employee from Missouri, an administrator at the University of Delaware, a human rights lawyer from Canada and two tenants of an apartment complex in Virginia Beach. The jury acquitted White on two counts alleging threats against nationally syndicated Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts, and the former mayor of South Harrison township, N.J. It also acquitted White on a charge that the threats against the Citibank employee were made with intent to extort.
White could be sentenced to as much as 35 years in prison.
Links and Court Documents:
Leader of American National Socialist Workers Party Indicted, U.S. Dept. of Justice (press release), Dec. 11, 2008 (pdf)
Dismissed charges in Chicago might not affect Roanoke case, Roanoke Times, July 26, 2009.
Trial could have anonymous jury, Roanoke Times, Nov. 26, 2009.
Judge: White trial will proceed, Roanoke Times, Dec. 3, 2009.
Neo-Nazi White's trial begins today, Roanoke Times, Dec. 9, 2009.
U.S. v. William White trial blog, Roanoke Times
Jury finds White guilty on 4 counts, Roanoke Times, Dec. 19, 2009.
CRIMINAL CASE: U.S. v. Turner, Crim. No. 09-542 (N.D. Ill. 2009), moved, No. 09-____ (E.D. N.Y. 2009).
Status: Mistrial declared Dec. 7, 2009; retrial scheduled for Feb. 1, 2010.On June 3, 2009, blogger and Internet radio host Hal Turner, a white supremacist who broadasct from his home in North Bergen, N.J., surrendered to police for comments on his program that were alleged to constitute threats to two Connecticut elected officials and a state ethics official (see Connecticut v. Turner).
Two weeks later, the FBI arrested Turner for alleged threats against three judges of the federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. In September, the case was moved to the federal district court in Brooklyn, N.Y., where trial began Dec. 2, 2009. After a four-day trial, the jury announced that it was deadlocked and Federal Judge Donald Walter declared a mistrial. A retrial is scheduled for Feb. 1, 2010.
His lawyer is arguing that the comments were "political hyperbole" protected by the First Amendment.
Links and Court Documents:
U.S. v. Turner (Citizen Media Law Project)
Blogger arrested in threats on federal judges (Chicago Breaking News Center, June 24, 2009)
Tracing Xenophobic Internet Chatter to Its Roots in New Jersey Town (New York Times, June 30, 2009)
Man accused of judge threats called FBI informant (Associated Press, July 28, 2009)
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Isaias Antonio, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Victor Cruz, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Felix Cuevas, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Richard Figueroa-Santiago, No. 08-021458CF (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Antonio Germiniano, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Devin Goldie, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Miguel Jimenez, Jr., (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Erik Hernandez, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Uriel Lujan, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Yan Rocha, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Obduella Soto, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Pablo Ortega, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Priscilla Ortiz, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Elvis Eladio Rodriguez, No. 08-000169CF (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Marcos Santiago, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
In what appears to be the first use of a new Florida law that criminalizes the promotion of gangs on the Internet, the Lee County Sheriff’s Office arrested 15 men over the contents of their MySpace pages, which prosecutors claim advertised and promoted gang membership.
The suspects ranged in age from 14 to 58 years old, and from those with long criminal records to those with no previous arrests. Prosecutors contended that many of them had displayed their gang membership and criminal intentions on MySpace and other web sites. Examples cited by prosecutors included a 15-year-old's "hit list" of "people I wanna kill," and a 14-year-old's posted pictures of himself dressed in gang colors and displaying gang hand signals.
On August 4, Florida District Court Judge Ramiro Mañalich heard arguments from attorneys from two of the defendants, Richard Omar Figueroa-Santiago and Elvis Eladio Rodriguez, both contending that the statute is unconstitutional.
It is unclear whether Judge Ramiro Mañalich has decided the question, but the case is proceeding, with a pre-trial conference held on Dec. 8.
Case Information and Links:
14 accused gang members arrested in Internet recruiting bust (Naples News, Nov. 14, 2008)
Lee County notches 15th arrest in effort to curb gang activity via the Internet (Naples News, Nov. 17, 2008)
Busted on Myspace: Two men headed to court for gang material on Web sites (Naples News, July 28, 2009)
Are gang-related Web postings illegal? Judge listens to arguments (Naples News, Aug. 4, 2009)
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Victor Cruz, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Felix Cuevas, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Richard Figueroa-Santiago, No. 08-021458CF (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Antonio Germiniano, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Devin Goldie, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Miguel Jimenez, Jr., (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Erik Hernandez, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Uriel Lujan, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Yan Rocha, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Obduella Soto, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Pablo Ortega, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Priscilla Ortiz, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Elvis Eladio Rodriguez, No. 08-000169CF (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
CRIMINAL CASE: Florida v. Marcos Santiago, (Fla. Cir. Ct., Lee County filed Nov. 14, 2008).
In what appears to be the first use of a new Florida law that criminalizes the promotion of gangs on the Internet, the Lee County Sheriff’s Office arrested 15 men over the contents of their MySpace pages, which prosecutors claim advertised and promoted gang membership.
The suspects ranged in age from 14 to 58 years old, and from those with long criminal records to those with no previous arrests. Prosecutors contended that many of them had displayed their gang membership and criminal intentions on MySpace and other web sites. Examples cited by prosecutors included a 15-year-old's "hit list" of "people I wanna kill," and a 14-year-old's posted pictures of himself dressed in gang colors and displaying gang hand signals.
On August 4, Florida District Court Judge Ramiro Mañalich heard arguments from attorneys from two of the defendants, Richard Omar Figueroa-Santiago and Elvis Eladio Rodriguez, both contending that the statute is unconstitutional.
It is unclear whether Judge Ramiro Mañalich has decided the question, but the case is proceeding, with a pre-trial conference held on Dec. 8.
Case Information and Links:
14 accused gang members arrested in Internet recruiting bust (Naples News, Nov. 14, 2008)
Lee County notches 15th arrest in effort to curb gang activity via the Internet (Naples News, Nov. 17, 2008)
Busted on Myspace: Two men headed to court for gang material on Web sites (Naples News, July 28, 2009)
Are gang-related Web postings illegal? Judge listens to arguments (Naples News, Aug. 4, 2009)
CRIMINAL CASE: Commonwealth v. Ruffino, No. _____ (Mass. Dist. Ct., New Bedford filed Nov. 22, 2009).
Status: Pending.
Massachusetts police arrested Matthew Ruffino and Jason Foley after they allegedly posted a rap video on YouTube and MySpace that curses Ruffino's former probation officer and a state police trooper who ticketed Ruffino for driving with a suspended license. Both are cited by name in the video, followed by sounds of gunshots.
Ruffino and Foley are charged with threats to commit a crime, threats to use a firearm and witness intimidation. Both pleaded not guilty. On Nov. 30, they were denied bail.
Links and Court Documents:
Bail denied for local pair charged with threatening law enforcement officials in rap video (South Coast Today, Dec. 1, 2009)
Rap Video Threat Suspects Plead Not Guilty, More Arrests Possible (Associated Press, Nov. 23, 2009)
Singers arrested for YouTube video threatening cops (Boston Herald, Nov. 24, 2009)
508 Productions test First Amendment limits (South Coast Today, Nov. 24, 2009)
Brain Research Labs v. Clark, No. CGC-09-491932 (Cal. Super., San Fransisco County filed Aug. 27, 2009).
Status: Special motion to strike pending.
After filing a class action lawsuit against the makers of dietary supplement Procera AVH, the law firm Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley posted a video on YouTube titled "Beware of false claims made by a so-called dietary supplement Procera AVH," featuring partner Thomas Clarke Jr. warning of alleged dangers of the supplement.
Procera AVH maker Brain Research Labs then sued Clarke and the firm for libel over statements in the video. The defendants responded with a special motion to strike the lawsuit under California's anti-SLAPP statute. The court heard argument on the motion on Nov. 20.
Links and Court Documents:
Class Action Target Sues Law Firm for Defamation (The Recorder, Nov. 23, 2009)
>> YouTube video
>> Complaint
Status: Special motion to strike pending.
After filing a class action lawsuit against the makers of dietary supplement Procera AVH, the law firm Ropers, Majeski, Kohn & Bentley posted a video on YouTube titled "Beware of false claims made by a so-called dietary supplement Procera AVH," featuring partner Thomas Clarke Jr. warning of alleged dangers of the supplement.
Procera AVH maker Brain Research Labs then sued Clarke and the firm for libel over statements in the video. The defendants responded with a special motion to strike the lawsuit under California's anti-SLAPP statute. The court heard argument on the motion on Nov. 20.
Links and Court Documents:
Class Action Target Sues Law Firm for Defamation (The Recorder, Nov. 23, 2009)
>> YouTube video
>> Complaint
So Act Network v. Twitter, No. _____ (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County filed Nov. 16, 2009).
Status: Pending.
Social Action Network, operator of the social networking site SoAct!, filed a petition for pre-suit discovery naming Twitter, on order to obtain information to identify a tweeter who, using the pseudonym bobandscott, it alleges is sending defamatory messages about the company. (The tweets also appear on the Bob and Scott website.) According to the suit, the offending comments allege that So Act Network is involved in various financial frauds and stock manipulation.
Links and Court Documents:
SoAct wants Twitter to identify the users defaming it (Chicago Bar-Tender blog, Nov. 19, 2009).
>> Petition for pre-suit discovery
Status: Pending.
Social Action Network, operator of the social networking site SoAct!, filed a petition for pre-suit discovery naming Twitter, on order to obtain information to identify a tweeter who, using the pseudonym bobandscott, it alleges is sending defamatory messages about the company. (The tweets also appear on the Bob and Scott website.) According to the suit, the offending comments allege that So Act Network is involved in various financial frauds and stock manipulation.
Links and Court Documents:
SoAct wants Twitter to identify the users defaming it (Chicago Bar-Tender blog, Nov. 19, 2009).
>> Petition for pre-suit discovery
Robinson v. Albero, No. 0203SP009122009 (Md. Cir. Ct., Wicomico County filed Nov. 17, 2009)
Status: Pending
The owner of Robinson's Jewelry and Clock Store in Salisbury, Md. filed a civil suit against blogger Joe Albero, over postings on his Salisbury News blog site (sbynews.com). The suit was filed one week after Robinson sued to obtain a peace order against Albero.
Links and Court Documents:
Lawsuit accompanies charges against blogger (DelmarvaNow!, Nov. 19, 2009).
Status: Pending
The owner of Robinson's Jewelry and Clock Store in Salisbury, Md. filed a civil suit against blogger Joe Albero, over postings on his Salisbury News blog site (sbynews.com). The suit was filed one week after Robinson sued to obtain a peace order against Albero.
Links and Court Documents:
Lawsuit accompanies charges against blogger (DelmarvaNow!, Nov. 19, 2009).
Leeds v. Karlsruher, No. 2009-5018 (Tex. County Ct., El Paso County filed Nov. 16, 2009).
Status: Pending.
El Paso County ethics commission char Stuart Leeds sued blogger David Karlsruher over a Nov. 11, 2009 posting on his Refuse the Juice blog alleging that Leeds was "in such a hurry to get his committee all rigged up and ready to go" because "if he doesn't hurry up and get everything squared away, he and his buddies won't be ready to start the witch hunt before election season."
Links and Court Documents:
Ethics panel chairman sues over online column (El Paso Times, Nov. 18, 2009).
>> Court docket
Status: Pending.
El Paso County ethics commission char Stuart Leeds sued blogger David Karlsruher over a Nov. 11, 2009 posting on his Refuse the Juice blog alleging that Leeds was "in such a hurry to get his committee all rigged up and ready to go" because "if he doesn't hurry up and get everything squared away, he and his buddies won't be ready to start the witch hunt before election season."
Links and Court Documents:
Ethics panel chairman sues over online column (El Paso Times, Nov. 18, 2009).
>> Court docket
Levinson Axelrod, P.A. v. Edward Heyburn, P.C., No. 3:09-cv-05627-FLW-LHG (D. N.J. filed Nov. 5, 2009).
Status: Pending.
A New Jersey law firm sued a former associate in New Jersey state court over his blog lambasting the firm. He removed the case to federal court, where the case is pending. On Nov. 9, the federal judge recused herself, because her husband has served as an arbitrator for the firm.
Links and Court Documents:
Fired Associate Launches Mimic Site to Trash-Talk Firm (New Jersey Law Journal, Nov. 2, 2009)
Status: Pending.
A New Jersey law firm sued a former associate in New Jersey state court over his blog lambasting the firm. He removed the case to federal court, where the case is pending. On Nov. 9, the federal judge recused herself, because her husband has served as an arbitrator for the firm.
Links and Court Documents:
Fired Associate Launches Mimic Site to Trash-Talk Firm (New Jersey Law Journal, Nov. 2, 2009)
Firm Sues Fired Associate Who Launched Firm Gripe Site (New Jersey Law Journal, Nov. 10, 2009)
Law Firm & Ex-Associate Litigate Badmouth Blog Battle in State & Federal Court (ABA Journal, Nov. 10, 2009
Federal Judge Recuses from Suit Over Faux Firm Gripe Site (New Jersey Law Journal, Nov. 16, 2009)
Federal Judge Recuses from Suit Over Faux Firm Gripe Site (New Jersey Law Journal, Nov. 16, 2009)
Jones v. Minkin, Civil No. 09-23256 (S.D. Fla. filed Oct. 27, 2009).
Status: Withdrawn.
On Aug. 22, 2007, University of Miami School of Law professor Donald Jones was arrested for allegedly offering an undercover officer $20 for sex, a charge that he plead not guilty to and was eventually dropped and expunged. The "Above the Law" blog, however, reported on the arrest on Oct. 17, 2007, with follow-up posts the next day, Oct. 27 (noting a Miami Herald story on the arrest) and Oct. 29. In October 2009, Jones sued the owner of the blog, along with its publisher and managing editor, making claims of false light, invasion of privacy, and copyright (for photos of Jones posted on the blog). He dropped the suit n earl November.
Links and Court Documents:
Complaint
Lawsuit of the Day: Jones v. Minkin (Above the Law blog, Nov. 3, 2009).
Status: Withdrawn.
On Aug. 22, 2007, University of Miami School of Law professor Donald Jones was arrested for allegedly offering an undercover officer $20 for sex, a charge that he plead not guilty to and was eventually dropped and expunged. The "Above the Law" blog, however, reported on the arrest on Oct. 17, 2007, with follow-up posts the next day, Oct. 27 (noting a Miami Herald story on the arrest) and Oct. 29. In October 2009, Jones sued the owner of the blog, along with its publisher and managing editor, making claims of false light, invasion of privacy, and copyright (for photos of Jones posted on the blog). He dropped the suit n earl November.
Links and Court Documents:
Complaint
Lawsuit of the Day: Jones v. Minkin (Above the Law blog, Nov. 3, 2009).
Law Professor Sues Above the Law Blog, Alleging 'Viciously Racist Series of Rants' (National Law Journal, Nov. 3, 2009)
Professor withdraws lawsuit against 'Above the Law' (National Law Journal, Nov. 5, 2009)
Professor withdraws lawsuit against 'Above the Law' (National Law Journal, Nov. 5, 2009)
Saadi v. Maroun, No. 07-CV-01976 (M.D. Fla. filed Oct. 31, 2007).
Status: $90,000 verdict for plaintiff.
Lawyer Edward T. Saadi filed a complaint against his cousin Pierre Maroun, Hala Fakhre Maroun, and several anonymous defendants based on blog and forum postings that alleged that Saadi consorted with terrorists, diverted funds from a non-profit to support terrorism, hadn't gone to law school and had a teenage girlfriend. Later Saadi added Maroun’s International, LLC as a defendant.
A motion to dismiss the claims of defamation was denied on court findings that the statements were held out as factual, and not as opinions. Hala Maroun was subsequently dropped from the lawsuit. A defense motion for summary judgment was denied, and the case proceeded to trial.
After a three-day trial, the court dismissed the claims against Maroun's International. The jury then found for Saadi and awarded $90,000: $30,000 in compensatory damages, and $60,000 in punitive damages.
The defendant has filed a post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or a new trial.
Links and Court Documents:
Case Information (Citizen Media Law Project)
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (filed Mar. 30, 2008)
Judgment (filed Oct. 2, 2009)
Status: $90,000 verdict for plaintiff.
Lawyer Edward T. Saadi filed a complaint against his cousin Pierre Maroun, Hala Fakhre Maroun, and several anonymous defendants based on blog and forum postings that alleged that Saadi consorted with terrorists, diverted funds from a non-profit to support terrorism, hadn't gone to law school and had a teenage girlfriend. Later Saadi added Maroun’s International, LLC as a defendant.
A motion to dismiss the claims of defamation was denied on court findings that the statements were held out as factual, and not as opinions. Hala Maroun was subsequently dropped from the lawsuit. A defense motion for summary judgment was denied, and the case proceeded to trial.
After a three-day trial, the court dismissed the claims against Maroun's International. The jury then found for Saadi and awarded $90,000: $30,000 in compensatory damages, and $60,000 in punitive damages.
The defendant has filed a post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or a new trial.
Links and Court Documents:
Case Information (Citizen Media Law Project)
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (filed Mar. 30, 2008)
Judgment (filed Oct. 2, 2009)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)