UPDATE
STATUS: Virginia Supreme Court overturns preliminary injunction.
Va: Injunction Over Negative Yelp Review Overturned by Virginia Supreme Court
Washington Post
The Virginia Supreme Court has overturned a preliminary injunction against a Fairfax woman who is facing a $750,000 defamation suit for her negative reviews on Yelp and Angie's List.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/injunction-over-negative-yelp-review-overturned-by-virginia-supreme-court/2013/01/02/c83046aa-552d-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html?wprss=rss_crime
Order: Perez v. Dietz Development
http://www.citizen.org/documents/SupremeCourtReversal.pdf
Dietz Development v. Perez (Oct. 31, 2012)
STATUS: Judge ruled in favor of Plaintiff in preliminary injunction.
Vir.Cir.: Judge Says Homeowner Must Delete Certain Accusations on Yelp, Angie's List
Washington Post
A Fairfax County woman being sued for defamation over negative reviews she wrote on Yelp and Angie's List must delete certain accusations and is barred from repeating them in new posts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/judge-says-homeowner-must-delete-some-accusations-on-yelp-angies-list/2012/12/05/bd97448a-3f22-11e2-a2d9-822f58ac9fd5_story.html?wprss=rss_local
Memo in Support of Preliminary Injunction:
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/plaintiffs-memo/162/
Showing posts with label Injunction / Restraining Order. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Injunction / Restraining Order. Show all posts
Blockowicz v. Williams, No. 09-C-3955 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2009)
UPDATE (1/5/11)
STATUS: 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court on Dec. 27, 2010.
7th Cir.: Websites Don't Have to Remove Nasty Comments
Courthouse News Service
A website's host and manager are not bound by an injunction that ordered the removal of defamatory comments because they were not "in active concert or participation" with those who posted the comments, the 7th Circuit ruled.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/29/32959.htm
--Decision: Blockowicz v. Williams
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1549803.html
Status: Bloggers enjoined after default judgment.
The Blockowicz family brought suit against defendants Joseph David Williams and Michelle Ramey after they allegedly posted defamatory statements on various websites. The defendants defaulted, and on Oct. 6, 2009, the court entered a permanent injunction requiring the defendants to remove their postings from the websites. The plaintiffs, however, were unable to contact the defendants; instead they approached third party providers of the websites. One of these, RipoffReport.com, refused to comply, arguing the court had no jurisdiction over them. The court agreed, finding the provider was not "acting in concert or legally identified" with the enjoined party as required for the court to enforce an injunction against a non-party under F.R.C.P. 65(d). Accordingly, the court denied the Blockowicz's motion to compel.
Links and court documents
Opinion denying motion to compel, filed Dec. 21, 2009
Ripoff Report Not Bound by Takedown Injunction Against User - Blockowicz v. Williams, Technology & Law Marketing Blog, Dec. 22, 2009
Court Allows Libelous Post To Remain Online, MediaPost Blogs, Dec. 24, 2009
Liming v. Townsend
Tex. App.: Paris, Texas doctor files libel lawsuit
The Paris NewsPeople frequently badmouth doctors, but one blogger's comments have landed her in a Lamar County court ... the court has granted a temporary injunction against further Internet postings and from contacting Liming's patients, employers, employees, contractors or business partners.
>> Decision: Liming v. Townsend
The Paris NewsPeople frequently badmouth doctors, but one blogger's comments have landed her in a Lamar County court ... the court has granted a temporary injunction against further Internet postings and from contacting Liming's patients, employers, employees, contractors or business partners.
>> Decision: Liming v. Townsend
Burfoot v. ___, No. ____ (Va. Cir. Ct. filed Apr. 21, 2010)
STATUS: The court reversed the grant of injunction
The vice mayor of Norfolk brought suit on Apr. 21 to take down a website, May4thcounts.com, alleging that several sections of the website were untrue, as well as 'slanderous and libelous.' Circuit Court Judge Charles E. Poston granted an injunction on Apr. 21, but sua sponte considered the motion and reversed his own decision, noting that freedom of the press and speech are "among the great bulwarks of liberty."
The vice mayor, Anthony Burfoot, has said he will hire a personal lawyer to find out who is behind the anonymous website once the campaign is over.
Links and Documents
- Judge vacates order shutting down anti-Burfoot website, The Virginian-Pilot, Apr. 23, 2010
The vice mayor of Norfolk brought suit on Apr. 21 to take down a website, May4thcounts.com, alleging that several sections of the website were untrue, as well as 'slanderous and libelous.' Circuit Court Judge Charles E. Poston granted an injunction on Apr. 21, but sua sponte considered the motion and reversed his own decision, noting that freedom of the press and speech are "among the great bulwarks of liberty."
The vice mayor, Anthony Burfoot, has said he will hire a personal lawyer to find out who is behind the anonymous website once the campaign is over.
Links and Documents
- Judge vacates order shutting down anti-Burfoot website, The Virginian-Pilot, Apr. 23, 2010
Global Wildlife Center v. Hammond Action News, No. 2010-0000866 (La. Dist. Ct., filed ___ 2010)
STATUS: TRO Dissolved.
A satirical website, "Hammond Action News," was forced to temporarily take down a fictional story about a giraffe attack on a tour guide on March 4, 2010. The article named a real nonprofit wildlife sanctuary, the Global Wildlife Center, and used a copyrighted photograph to illustrate the article. The plaintiffs brought suit after the owner of the satirical website refused to take the story down. Without holding a hearing, Louisiana judge Brenda Bedsole Ricks granted a temporary restraining injunction, and scheduled a hearing for Mar. 15. A different judge, Beth Wolfe, heard the evidence and dissolved the injunction. Judge Wolfe also ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant $500 in attorneys' fees and court costs.
Links and court documents
Judge: Web site must yank story about center giraffe, 2theadvocate.com, Mar. 4, 2010
Judge rules in satirical Web site's favor, USA Today, Mar. 16, 2010
Fake Giraffe Update: Louisiana Court Sides With Satirical Website, Citizen Media Law Project, Mar. 16, 2010
ACLU's Amicus Brief
A satirical website, "Hammond Action News," was forced to temporarily take down a fictional story about a giraffe attack on a tour guide on March 4, 2010. The article named a real nonprofit wildlife sanctuary, the Global Wildlife Center, and used a copyrighted photograph to illustrate the article. The plaintiffs brought suit after the owner of the satirical website refused to take the story down. Without holding a hearing, Louisiana judge Brenda Bedsole Ricks granted a temporary restraining injunction, and scheduled a hearing for Mar. 15. A different judge, Beth Wolfe, heard the evidence and dissolved the injunction. Judge Wolfe also ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant $500 in attorneys' fees and court costs.
Links and court documents
Judge: Web site must yank story about center giraffe, 2theadvocate.com, Mar. 4, 2010
Judge rules in satirical Web site's favor, USA Today, Mar. 16, 2010
Fake Giraffe Update: Louisiana Court Sides With Satirical Website, Citizen Media Law Project, Mar. 16, 2010
ACLU's Amicus Brief
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)