Burdick v. Superior Court (1/14/15)
STATUS:California Court of Appeals holds that there is no personal jurisdiction for case to move forward.
Cal.App.: No Personal Jurisdiction Arising from Allegedly Defamatory Facebook Postings
Washington Post (Eugene Volokh)
The California Court of Appeals recently held that posting allegedly defamatory statements on a person's Facebook page is insufficient in itself to create the contacts necessary to support personal jurisdiction.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/20/no-personal-jurisdiction-in-ca-arising-from-allegedly-defamatory-facebook-postings-targeting-ca-residents-herein-of-posts-second-law-of-judicial-decision-making/
Opinion: http://cases.justia.com/california/court-of-appeal/2015-g049107.pdf?ts=1421280050
Showing posts with label Personal Jurisdiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Personal Jurisdiction. Show all posts
Righthaven LLC v. Mostofi
STATUS: Defendant's motion to dismiss denied March 22, 2011
D. Nev.: Righthaven wins round in litigation campaign
Las Vegas Sun
One of Righthaven LLC's long-running copyright infringement lawsuits will continue in federal court in Las Vegas after a judge denied motions to dismiss or for a change of venue. The ruling against Dean Mostofi illustrates something for Righthaven defendants: While two Righthaven defendants have defeated Righthaven on fair use grounds, motions for dismissal based on jurisdictional grounds continue to fail.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/29/righthaven-wins-round-litigation-campaign/
--Order Denying Motion to Dismiss: Righthaven v. Mostofi
http://ia600101.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.74506/gov.uscourts.nvd.74506.19.0.pdf
See also:
--Plaintiff's Complaint: Righthaven v. Mostofi
http://ia600101.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.74506/gov.uscourts.nvd.74506.1.0.pdf
D. Nev.: Righthaven wins round in litigation campaign
Las Vegas Sun
One of Righthaven LLC's long-running copyright infringement lawsuits will continue in federal court in Las Vegas after a judge denied motions to dismiss or for a change of venue. The ruling against Dean Mostofi illustrates something for Righthaven defendants: While two Righthaven defendants have defeated Righthaven on fair use grounds, motions for dismissal based on jurisdictional grounds continue to fail.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/29/righthaven-wins-round-litigation-campaign/
--Order Denying Motion to Dismiss: Righthaven v. Mostofi
http://ia600101.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.74506/gov.uscourts.nvd.74506.19.0.pdf
See also:
--Plaintiff's Complaint: Righthaven v. Mostofi
http://ia600101.us.archive.org/2/items/gov.uscourts.nvd.74506/gov.uscourts.nvd.74506.1.0.pdf
Buckles v. Brides Club, Inc.
D. Utah: Creation of False Blog and LinkedIn Account Targeting Utah Resident Supports Personal Jurisdiction in Utah -- Buckles v. Brides Club, Inc.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
A federal district court in Utah recently concluded that several individuals who were allegedly involved in the creation of a false blog and LinkedIn account targeting a Utah resident are properly subject to personal jurisdiction in Utah.
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/08/creation_of_fal.htm
-- Decision, Buckles v. Brides Club, Inc.: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35900821/Buckles-v-Brides-Club-D-Utah-Aug-11-2010
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
A federal district court in Utah recently concluded that several individuals who were allegedly involved in the creation of a false blog and LinkedIn account targeting a Utah resident are properly subject to personal jurisdiction in Utah.
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/08/creation_of_fal.htm
-- Decision, Buckles v. Brides Club, Inc.: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35900821/Buckles-v-Brides-Club-D-Utah-Aug-11-2010
Johnson v. Arden
8th Cir.: Cat Breeders Lose Bid to Revive Defamation Case
Courthouse News Service
Exotic cat breeders in Missouri lost their bid to revive defamation claims against an Internet service provider and two people who allegedly complaints about their breeding service on ComplaintsBoard.com.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/10/29461.htm
-- Decision, Johnson v. Arden: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/10/08/092601P.pdf
Courthouse News Service
Exotic cat breeders in Missouri lost their bid to revive defamation claims against an Internet service provider and two people who allegedly complaints about their breeding service on ComplaintsBoard.com.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/10/29461.htm
-- Decision, Johnson v. Arden: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/10/08/092601P.pdf
Baldwin v. Fischer-Smith
Mo. App.: Dog Breeder's Libel Lawsuit Reinstated
Courthouse News
A website designed to "stop" a breeder of Chinese Crested show dogs also bred a lawsuit that belongs in Missouri courts, the state appeals court ruled.
---Opinion: Baldwin v. Fischer-Smith
Courthouse News
A website designed to "stop" a breeder of Chinese Crested show dogs also bred a lawsuit that belongs in Missouri courts, the state appeals court ruled.
---Opinion: Baldwin v. Fischer-Smith
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
CRIMINAL CASE: U.S. v. Drew, Crim. No. 08-00582 (C.D. Cal. indictment filed May 15, 2008).
Status: conviction on three misdemeanor charges, acquittal on three of the felony charges, hung jury on one felony charge (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2008); felony charge dismissed (Dec. 31, 2008); convictions rev'd on post-trial motions (preliminary ruling July 2, 2009).
Lori Drew created a fake MySpace page as part of scheme to find out how a particular 13-year-old girl felt about the woman’s daughter. She posed as a boy who flirted online with Megan Meier for a month. Then another girl who had a password to the account began sending nasty e-mails to Megan, and sent an e-mail breaking off the apparent relationship. Megan then committed suicide.
In early December 2007, St. Charles County prosecuting attorney Jack Banas announced that there was insufficient evidence to file harassment, stalking or child endangerment charges against Drew. Federal prosecutors in Missouri also said there was no basis for prosecution.
But in May 2008 a federal grand jury in California issued an indictment for conspiracy and computer fraud. The indictment claims jurisdiction with the California court based on the location of MySpace’s headquarters. On June 12. 2008, Drew pleaded not guilty. In August, the Electronic Frontier Foundation submitted a brief seeking dismissal of the case, arguing that the prosecution is misapplying a federal computer fraud statute.
In late November a jury convicted Drew of three misdemeanor charges of accessing MySpace’s computers without authorization in order to obtain information about the 13-year-old, acquitted her of three felony charges of unauthorized access to MySpace's servers in order to cause emotional distress, and reached a deadlock on one felony charge of conspiracy (which was dismissed at request of the prosecutor).
In July 2009, the judge threw out the convictions in a preliminary ruling on post-trial motions, with a written decision forthcoming.
The prosecutor filed a notice of appeal in late September 2009, but requires approval from U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan before the appeal proceeds.
Links and Court Documents:
No charges to be filed over Meier suicide Prosecutor says MySpace hoax doesn't cross criminal threshold (St. Charles, Mo. Journal, Dec. 3, 2007)
A Hoax Turned Fatal Draws Anger but No Charges (New York Times, Nov. 28, 2007)
L.A. grand jury issues subpoenas in Web suicide case (Los Angeles Times, Jan. 9, 2008)
Woman pleads innocent in Myspace hoax suicide case (Reuters, June 16, 2008)
EFF urges judge to dismiss MySpace case (CNet News, Aug. 4, 2008)
Govt: Cyberbullying is a New Phenomenon, as is Social Networking (Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Aug. 13, 2008)
Judge tentatively refuses to dismiss Internet case (Associated Press, Sept. 4, 2008)
Judge Throws Out Conviction in Cyberbullying Case (New York Times, July 2, 2009)
Prosecutor Dismisses Felony Charge In MySpace Case (Online Media Daily, Jan. 2, 2009)
Drew Case May Go To Higher Court (Online Media Daily, Sept. 28, 2009)
Prosecutors Drop Plans to Appeal Lori Drew Case (Wired "Threat Level" blog, Nov. 20, 2009).
>> EFF amicus brief
Status: conviction on three misdemeanor charges, acquittal on three of the felony charges, hung jury on one felony charge (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2008); felony charge dismissed (Dec. 31, 2008); convictions rev'd on post-trial motions (preliminary ruling July 2, 2009).
Lori Drew created a fake MySpace page as part of scheme to find out how a particular 13-year-old girl felt about the woman’s daughter. She posed as a boy who flirted online with Megan Meier for a month. Then another girl who had a password to the account began sending nasty e-mails to Megan, and sent an e-mail breaking off the apparent relationship. Megan then committed suicide.
In early December 2007, St. Charles County prosecuting attorney Jack Banas announced that there was insufficient evidence to file harassment, stalking or child endangerment charges against Drew. Federal prosecutors in Missouri also said there was no basis for prosecution.
But in May 2008 a federal grand jury in California issued an indictment for conspiracy and computer fraud. The indictment claims jurisdiction with the California court based on the location of MySpace’s headquarters. On June 12. 2008, Drew pleaded not guilty. In August, the Electronic Frontier Foundation submitted a brief seeking dismissal of the case, arguing that the prosecution is misapplying a federal computer fraud statute.
In late November a jury convicted Drew of three misdemeanor charges of accessing MySpace’s computers without authorization in order to obtain information about the 13-year-old, acquitted her of three felony charges of unauthorized access to MySpace's servers in order to cause emotional distress, and reached a deadlock on one felony charge of conspiracy (which was dismissed at request of the prosecutor).
In July 2009, the judge threw out the convictions in a preliminary ruling on post-trial motions, with a written decision forthcoming.
The prosecutor filed a notice of appeal in late September 2009, but requires approval from U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan before the appeal proceeds.
Links and Court Documents:
No charges to be filed over Meier suicide Prosecutor says MySpace hoax doesn't cross criminal threshold (St. Charles, Mo. Journal, Dec. 3, 2007)
A Hoax Turned Fatal Draws Anger but No Charges (New York Times, Nov. 28, 2007)
L.A. grand jury issues subpoenas in Web suicide case (Los Angeles Times, Jan. 9, 2008)
Woman pleads innocent in Myspace hoax suicide case (Reuters, June 16, 2008)
EFF urges judge to dismiss MySpace case (CNet News, Aug. 4, 2008)
Govt: Cyberbullying is a New Phenomenon, as is Social Networking (Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Aug. 13, 2008)
Judge tentatively refuses to dismiss Internet case (Associated Press, Sept. 4, 2008)
Judge Throws Out Conviction in Cyberbullying Case (New York Times, July 2, 2009)
Prosecutor Dismisses Felony Charge In MySpace Case (Online Media Daily, Jan. 2, 2009)
Drew Case May Go To Higher Court (Online Media Daily, Sept. 28, 2009)
Prosecutors Drop Plans to Appeal Lori Drew Case (Wired "Threat Level" blog, Nov. 20, 2009).
>> EFF amicus brief
Healix Infusion Therapy v. Helix Health, Civil No. H-08-0337 (S.D. Tex. 2008).
Status: Fraud and trademark claims dismissed; cybersquatting claim remains
Blogger Steven Murphy is a medical doctor in Connecticut whose blog, the Gene Sherpa (thegenesherpa.blogspot.com), discusses "personalized medicine," medical care customized to a patient's genetic and environmental background. The blog links to and often discusses Helix Health, a company that provides referrals to physicians who practice personalized medicine, and includes its logo.
Healix Infusion Therapy, an unrelated Texas company, holds the trademark for the term "Healix Health."
In 2007, Murphy, acting on behalf of Helix Health, filed an application for the trademark "Helix Health." Healix Infusion Therapy found out about the application, and filed a notice of opposition that it would be confusingly similar to its "Healix Health" trademark. After negotiations to resolve the dispute failed, Healix sued Murphy and Helix in federal court in Texas.
Regarding the claims against Murphy, the court dismissed the fraud claim for lack of evidence, and dismissed the trademark claim after finding that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Murphy. But it allowed the cybersquatting claim to continue. And it dismissed all the claims against Helix for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Links and Court Documents:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/05/connecticut_blo.htm
http://www.thelen.com/tlu/HealixInfusionTherapyVHelixHealth.pdf
Status: Fraud and trademark claims dismissed; cybersquatting claim remains
Blogger Steven Murphy is a medical doctor in Connecticut whose blog, the Gene Sherpa (thegenesherpa.blogspot.com), discusses "personalized medicine," medical care customized to a patient's genetic and environmental background. The blog links to and often discusses Helix Health, a company that provides referrals to physicians who practice personalized medicine, and includes its logo.
Healix Infusion Therapy, an unrelated Texas company, holds the trademark for the term "Healix Health."
In 2007, Murphy, acting on behalf of Helix Health, filed an application for the trademark "Helix Health." Healix Infusion Therapy found out about the application, and filed a notice of opposition that it would be confusingly similar to its "Healix Health" trademark. After negotiations to resolve the dispute failed, Healix sued Murphy and Helix in federal court in Texas.
Regarding the claims against Murphy, the court dismissed the fraud claim for lack of evidence, and dismissed the trademark claim after finding that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Murphy. But it allowed the cybersquatting claim to continue. And it dismissed all the claims against Helix for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Links and Court Documents:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/05/connecticut_blo.htm
http://www.thelen.com/tlu/HealixInfusionTherapyVHelixHealth.pdf
Lexington Homes, Inc. v. Siskind, No. 2004-CA01018 (No. 04-CA-1018WS-G) (
Status: Dismissed
A housing developer sued the creator a web site (www.bad-lexingtonhomesinc.net; no longer active) that criticized the quality of its homes, saying that it led to decreased sales. The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, since the defendants are not
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/lexington-homes-v-siskind
http://www.legaline.com/2006/03/florida-court-dismisses-web-defamation.html
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/01/Hernando/Builder_sues_man_for_.shtml
Order dismissing case: http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2005-11-02-Order%20Granting%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss.pdf
Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall, Civil No. 07-1740, 2008 WL 958136 (M.D. Fla., Apr. 7, 2008).
Status: Dismissed
Internet Solutions Corporation (ISC), which operates various websites on employment recruiting and Internet advertising, sued blogger Tabatha Marshall after her site, www.tabathamarshall.com, claimed that ISC was operating a “phishing” scam. (“Phishing” is the illicit practice of acquiring sensitive personal and financial information, such as usernames, passwords and credit card information, by assuming an apparently trustworthy identity online.) The company sued Marshall, a resident ofWashington state, in federal court in Florida Marshall ’s blog did not have sufficient “purposeful contacts” with Florida
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/internet-solutions-v-marshall
http://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/md-fla-internet-jurisdiction-case-internet-solutions-corporation-v-marshall/
Order dismissing case: http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/isc-v-marshall.pdf
Status: Dismissed
Internet Solutions Corporation (ISC), which operates various websites on employment recruiting and Internet advertising, sued blogger Tabatha Marshall after her site, www.tabathamarshall.com, claimed that ISC was operating a “phishing” scam. (“Phishing” is the illicit practice of acquiring sensitive personal and financial information, such as usernames, passwords and credit card information, by assuming an apparently trustworthy identity online.) The company sued Marshall, a resident of
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/internet-solutions-v-marshall
http://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/md-fla-internet-jurisdiction-case-internet-solutions-corporation-v-marshall/
Order dismissing case: http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/isc-v-marshall.pdf
Bell v. Shah, Civil No. 06-21063 (S.D.
Status: Settled for apology and $10,000
Plaintiff Joel Bell, who serves as a manager for several professional sports players, sued a writer for the website draftcity.com (which closed when the legal action was threatened) for items on the site disparaging
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/bell-v-shah
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=379483&view=next&sid=e9b32f008e98909a27989cb35a3f1f98
Docket available at https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?124513 (PACER log-in required)
Bell v. Shah, Civil No. 05-0671 (D.
Status: Transferred to S.D.
Plaintiff Joel Bell, who serves as a manager for several professional sports players, sued a writer for the the website draftcity.com (which closed when the legal action was threatened) for items on the site disparaging
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.digestiblelaw.com/jurisdiction/blogQ.aspx?entry=3735
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=379483&view=next&sid=e9b32f008e98909a27989cb35a3f1f98
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
Fahmy v. Hogge, No. 2:08-cv-01152 (C.D. Cal. filed Feb. 20, 2008).
Status: Dismissed.
FatimaFlorida
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/fahmy-v-hogge
Complaint: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2008cv01152/408884/1/
Initial denial of motion to dismiss: http://www.linksandlaw.de/news1310-fatima-graham-klage.htm
Status: Dismissed.
Fatima
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/fahmy-v-hogge
Complaint: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/cacdce/2:2008cv01152/408884/1/
Initial denial of motion to dismiss: http://www.linksandlaw.de/news1310-fatima-graham-klage.htm
Cruse v. 451 Press LLC, No. CV 08-1462 (Ark. Cir. Ct., Baxter County filed May 15, 2008), removed to federal court, Civil No. 08- 03031 (W.D. Ark. June 18, 2008), remanded back to state court (W.D. Ark.
Status: Dismissed
A former special education teacher who was acquitted of misdemeanor charges of endangering the welfare of a minor sued over comments on the Teacher Smackdown web site (www.teachersmackdown.com), which she alleges falsely reported that she had pleaded guilty to the charge. On March 19, Circuit Court judge Gary Isbel dismissed the suit on the grounds that Arkansas courts did not have personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendants. The plaintiff said she would appeal this ruling.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/cruse-v-teacher-smackdown
Complaint: http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2008-05-15-Cruse%20Complaint.pdf
http://baxterbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080531/NEWS01/805310307
http://baxterbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080908/NEWS01/809080306
http://baxterbulletin.com/article/20090429/NEWS01/904290357/1002/rss
Status: Dismissed
A former special education teacher who was acquitted of misdemeanor charges of endangering the welfare of a minor sued over comments on the Teacher Smackdown web site (www.teachersmackdown.com), which she alleges falsely reported that she had pleaded guilty to the charge. On March 19, Circuit Court judge Gary Isbel dismissed the suit on the grounds that Arkansas courts did not have personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendants. The plaintiff said she would appeal this ruling.
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/cruse-v-teacher-smackdown
Complaint: http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2008-05-15-Cruse%20Complaint.pdf
http://baxterbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080531/NEWS01/805310307
http://baxterbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080908/NEWS01/809080306
http://baxterbulletin.com/article/20090429/NEWS01/904290357/1002/rss
Mesa Airlines v. Uslan, Civil No. 07-178 (D. Ariz. dismissed June 25, 2007).
Status: Dismissed
Mesa Airlines, which does business as the airline go! serving the Hawaiian islands, sued Mike Uslan over postings on the dontflygo.com blog site, which Mesa alleged he controlled. Uslan, a pilot with rival Aloha Airlines, was reported in one newspaper article to have been a founder of an anti-go! group named “Hawaii's Airline Employees Repelling Ornstein," or “HERO.” ("Ornstein" refers to Jonathan Ornstein, the Chief Executive Officer of Mesa's parent company, Mesa Air Group, Inc.) Mesa Air Group is an Arizona corporation based in Pheonix, and the dontflygo.com site was initially registered with an Arizona-based hosting company that provided anonymous hosting. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the case on personal jurisdiction grounds, holding that that Mesa had not sufficiently alleged Uslan’s connection to the site.
Links and Court Documents
Summary and case documents: http://www.mesavsuslan.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesa_Airlines_v._Uslan_lawsuit
http://honoluluweekly.com/diary/2007/03/navy-to-use-sonar-despite-earlier-rulings-2/
http://starbulletin.com/2007/06/23/business/story02.html
http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2007/02/26/daily45.html?surround=lfn
http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2007/06/25/daily17.html?from_rss=
http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=524317
Order granting motion to dismiss: http://www.dontflygo.com/documents/decision.pdf
Status: Dismissed
Mesa Airlines, which does business as the airline go! serving the Hawaiian islands, sued Mike Uslan over postings on the dontflygo.com blog site, which Mesa alleged he controlled. Uslan, a pilot with rival Aloha Airlines, was reported in one newspaper article to have been a founder of an anti-go! group named “Hawaii's Airline Employees Repelling Ornstein," or “HERO.” ("Ornstein" refers to Jonathan Ornstein, the Chief Executive Officer of Mesa's parent company, Mesa Air Group, Inc.) Mesa Air Group is an Arizona corporation based in Pheonix, and the dontflygo.com site was initially registered with an Arizona-based hosting company that provided anonymous hosting. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the case on personal jurisdiction grounds, holding that that Mesa had not sufficiently alleged Uslan’s connection to the site.
Links and Court Documents
Summary and case documents: http://www.mesavsuslan.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesa_Airlines_v._Uslan_lawsuit
http://honoluluweekly.com/diary/2007/03/navy-to-use-sonar-despite-earlier-rulings-2/
http://starbulletin.com/2007/06/23/business/story02.html
http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2007/02/26/daily45.html?surround=lfn
http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2007/06/25/daily17.html?from_rss=
http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=524317
Order granting motion to dismiss: http://www.dontflygo.com/documents/decision.pdf
Melvin v. Doe, No. G.D. 99-10264 (Pa. C.P., Alleghany County 2000).
Status: Dismissed by plaintiff
Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin sued the anonymous author of the web site grantstreet99, which focused on local politics in Alleghany County, Pa., over allegations that she had improperly lobbyied former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge on behalf of an attorney seeking appointment to the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas bench.
Melvin originally sued in Virginia, home of "Grant Street ‘99’s" web host AOL, seeking an ex parte order requiring AOL to reveal the webmaster’s identity of "John Doe." When the Virginia action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, Judge Melvin then filed suit in Pennsylvania.
The trial court ordered Doe’s identity revealed and three fellow judges of Melvin’s on the Superior Court declined to consider the merits of the appeal. In November 2003, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court sent the case back to the Superior Court and ordered a consideration of the merits. Melvin then dropped the case.
In 2006, at a trial in a separate federal suit, John J. Chapman testified that he was behind the Grant Street99 website. The jury in the federal suit, in which Chapman alleged that he was improperly fired from his job with Alleghany County because of the site, found in favor of the county. (Chapman v. Cannon, Civil No. 01-1341 (W.D. Pa. jury verdict May 26, 2006)).
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/melvin-v-doe
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04094/295582.stm
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=3434
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1069170417384
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_455043.html
Status: Dismissed by plaintiff
Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin sued the anonymous author of the web site grantstreet99, which focused on local politics in Alleghany County, Pa., over allegations that she had improperly lobbyied former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge on behalf of an attorney seeking appointment to the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas bench.
Melvin originally sued in Virginia, home of "Grant Street ‘99’s" web host AOL, seeking an ex parte order requiring AOL to reveal the webmaster’s identity of "John Doe." When the Virginia action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, Judge Melvin then filed suit in Pennsylvania.
The trial court ordered Doe’s identity revealed and three fellow judges of Melvin’s on the Superior Court declined to consider the merits of the appeal. In November 2003, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court sent the case back to the Superior Court and ordered a consideration of the merits. Melvin then dropped the case.
In 2006, at a trial in a separate federal suit, John J. Chapman testified that he was behind the Grant Street99 website. The jury in the federal suit, in which Chapman alleged that he was improperly fired from his job with Alleghany County because of the site, found in favor of the county. (Chapman v. Cannon, Civil No. 01-1341 (W.D. Pa. jury verdict May 26, 2006)).
Links and Court Documents:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/melvin-v-doe
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04094/295582.stm
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=3434
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1069170417384
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_455043.html
Wargo v. Lavandeira, Civil No. 08-664752 (Ohio C.P. filed July 14, 2008), removed to federal court, No. 08-2035 (N.D. Ohio removed Aug. 22, 2008).
Status: Dismissed, Civil No. 08-664752, 2008 WL 4533673 (N.D. Ohio)
Diane Wargo sent an e-mail from her workplace to the Perezhilton.com blog in response to an item about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt spending Christmas with their children. Mario Lavandeira, who runs the blog, posted Wargo’s e-mail as the "Email of the Day," along her full name, e-mail address, and employer. Wargo claims that she then received hundreds of threatening e-mails, and several threatening phone calls, and that she was fired from her job. She then sued for claims including breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, negligence, defamation, invasion of privacy, tortious interference, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging that the posting of her true full name (rather than her screen name alias), e-mail address and employer violated the blog’s “conditions of use,” which promise that only screen names will be posted unless the blog obtains permission. The case was removed from state to federal court in August 2008, then dismissed in early October. In dismissing the case, the court held that the Perezhilton.com site was not directed at the state of Ohio, so courts there did not have jurisdiction in the case.
Links and Court Documents:
http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2008/07/hollywood-doc-1.html
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/07/local_woman_sues_gossip_column.html
Case information: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/wargo-v-lavandeira
Complaint: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0715081perez1.html
Status: Dismissed, Civil No. 08-664752, 2008 WL 4533673 (N.D. Ohio)
Diane Wargo sent an e-mail from her workplace to the Perezhilton.com blog in response to an item about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt spending Christmas with their children. Mario Lavandeira, who runs the blog, posted Wargo’s e-mail as the "Email of the Day," along her full name, e-mail address, and employer. Wargo claims that she then received hundreds of threatening e-mails, and several threatening phone calls, and that she was fired from her job. She then sued for claims including breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, negligence, defamation, invasion of privacy, tortious interference, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging that the posting of her true full name (rather than her screen name alias), e-mail address and employer violated the blog’s “conditions of use,” which promise that only screen names will be posted unless the blog obtains permission. The case was removed from state to federal court in August 2008, then dismissed in early October. In dismissing the case, the court held that the Perezhilton.com site was not directed at the state of Ohio, so courts there did not have jurisdiction in the case.
Links and Court Documents:
http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2008/07/hollywood-doc-1.html
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/07/local_woman_sues_gossip_column.html
Case information: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/wargo-v-lavandeira
Complaint: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0715081perez1.html
Sierra Corporate Design, Inc. v. Ritz, No. 09-05-C-01660 (N.D. Dist. Ct. June 14, 2005).
Status: Dismissed in part (against one defendant); pending in part (against other defendant).
The plaintiff company, owned by Jerry Reynolds, alleged that defendant David Ritz posted the company’s server information on a website that provides such information to spammers who use it to hide the source of their e-mails. The company also sued Ed Falk alleging that he posted a comment on Usenet linking to the information posted by Ritz. On Oct, 26, 2006, the court dismissed the claims against Falk for lack of personal jurisdiction; on Nov. 22, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against Ritz. The claims against Ritz continue.
Links and Court Documents:
Amended complaint: http://www.rahul.net/falk/Nz/Documents/0209_001.pdf
Many court documents available at http://www.rahul.net/falk/Nz/Documents/
Status: Dismissed in part (against one defendant); pending in part (against other defendant).
The plaintiff company, owned by Jerry Reynolds, alleged that defendant David Ritz posted the company’s server information on a website that provides such information to spammers who use it to hide the source of their e-mails. The company also sued Ed Falk alleging that he posted a comment on Usenet linking to the information posted by Ritz. On Oct, 26, 2006, the court dismissed the claims against Falk for lack of personal jurisdiction; on Nov. 22, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against Ritz. The claims against Ritz continue.
Links and Court Documents:
Amended complaint: http://www.rahul.net/falk/Nz/Documents/0209_001.pdf
Many court documents available at http://www.rahul.net/falk/Nz/Documents/
Doe v. Falk, Civil No. 09-05-C-543 (N.D. Dist. Ct. filed Feb. 2005).
Status: Dismissed on jurisdictional grounds (March 9, 2006)
Jerry Reynolds sued Ed Falk, who maintained the “Spam Tracking Page” (www.rahul.net/falk/), which linked to information about alleged “spammers” and ways to fight back. The complaint cited comments on the blog naming Reynolds and his company as spammers. After proceeding through discovery, the trial court dismissed the case on the grounds that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Falk, who lives in California.
Links and Court Documents:
Complaint: http://www.rahul.net/falk/Nz/Documents/0208_001.pdf
Many court documents available at http://www.rahul.net/falk/Nz/lawsuit.html and http://www.rahul.net/falk/Nz/Documents/
Order granting defense motion to dismiss: http://www.rahul.net/falk/Nz/Documents/order_3-9-06.pdf
Status: Dismissed on jurisdictional grounds (March 9, 2006)
Jerry Reynolds sued Ed Falk, who maintained the “Spam Tracking Page” (www.rahul.net/falk/), which linked to information about alleged “spammers” and ways to fight back. The complaint cited comments on the blog naming Reynolds and his company as spammers. After proceeding through discovery, the trial court dismissed the case on the grounds that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Falk, who lives in California.
Links and Court Documents:
Complaint: http://www.rahul.net/falk/Nz/Documents/0208_001.pdf
Many court documents available at http://www.rahul.net/falk/Nz/lawsuit.html and http://www.rahul.net/falk/Nz/Documents/
Order granting defense motion to dismiss: http://www.rahul.net/falk/Nz/Documents/order_3-9-06.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)