After voluntarily dismissing a nearly identical lawsuit in federal court in Florida, Internet Solutions filed a complaint against Archie Garga-Richardson in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging defamation, interference with business relationships, trade libel, and unfair competition under California law. Garga-Richardson moved to strike the complaint under the California anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16).

Update:

11/24/08 - The court issued a tentative ruling granting Garga-Richardson's motion to strike the complaint.

12/4/08 - Case dismissed.

1/2/09 - Internet Solutions filed a notice of appeal.

2/11/09 - Internet Solutions abandoned its appeal.

Jack Thompson, a former Florida attorney, recently disbarred, filed a complaint with the Florida Bar against JAABlog publisher and attorney William Gelin. Thompson is seeking to have Gelin sanctioned by the Florida Bar (potential punishments range from reprimand to disbarment) because his JAABlog site "traffics in rumors, gossip, and scandal about members of the legal community, including primarily judges." The site allows unmoderated, anonymous posting of blog comments. The complaint centers on the anonymous comments. Thompson's allegations have caused the Florida Bar to draft a letter of inquiry to Gelin on December 5, 2008. Thus, in accordance with Florida Bar rules, a new file was opened and generated by virtue of Thompson's latest complaint.

(Portion above submitted by Guest.)

Katherine Evans, a former student at Pembroke Pines Charter High School, filed a federal lawsuit against the school's principal, alleging that he violated her First Amendment rights by suspending her for creating a Facebook group in which she criticized one of her teachers.  According to her complaint, Evans posted a photograph of her Advanced Placement English teacher on November 9, 2007, after school hours and from her home computer, in order to create a group for students to express their opinion about the teacher.  Evans herself wrote that the teacher is "the worst teacher I've ever met!"  She also asked classmates to "express your feelings of hatred" by posting comments on the page.

In copies of the comments attached as an exhibit to the complaint, it appears that three of her classmates posted comments, all of which praised the teacher and criticized Evans for creating the group.  "Mrs. Phelps is one of the most amazing teachers I've ever had and there's plenty of people who agree with me," one student wrote. "Whatever your reasons for hating her are, they're probably very immature."  Two days after posting the information, Evans took it down.

When Principal Peter Bayer learned of the Facebook group, he suspended Evans for three days, stating that she had engaged in "cyber-bullying harassment towards a staff member" and "disruptive behavior," according to Evans' complaint.  As a result, Evans claims that the school pulled her from her advanced placement classes and forced her into "lesser-weighted honors classes [and] unjustifiably besmirched Plantiff's academic record."

Evans, who is represented by the ACLU of Florida, is seeking "nominal damages," expungement of the suspension from her permanent school record, and attorneys' fees.

Real estate developer and business owner Zebulon Brodie sued Independent Newspapers, Inc. ("INI") and three anonymous commenters to a community forum hosted by INI for defamation and conspiracy. According to a brief filed on appeal, the lawsuit revolves around statements criticizing Brodie for selling his historic, pre-Civil War home to another developer (the home subsequently burned down) and accusing him of maintaining a dirty Dunkin' Donuts establishment and letting trash "waft" into a nearby waterway. Appellant's Brief, at 4-6. INI removed the disputed comments after Brodie complained to it, but Brodie sued nonetheless.

INI moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) immunized it from liability for comments posted by third parties. At the same time, Brodie served a subpoena demanding that INI identify the Doe defendants "CorsicaRiver," "chatdusoleil," and "Born &amp Raised Here." INI moved to quash the subpoena and for a protective order, arguing that Brodie had failed to make the legal and evidentiary showing necessary to overcome First Amendment protection for anonymous speech. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit against INI based on CDA 230, but ordered INI to provide identifying information for the anonymous commenters.

INI filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court granted. On reconsideration, the court determined that the statements about the sale and burning of Brodie's home were not defamatory statements "of and concerning" Brodie, and thus could not support a claim for defamation or a subpoena seeking the identity of those posters. The court determined, however, that the statements relating to his Dunkin' Donuts establishment could support a claim for defamation, and it ordered the unmasking of the individuals who made those statements.

Subsequent proceedings revealed that two anonymous posters not named in the complaint or previous subpoena -- “RockyRacoonMD” and “Suze” -- were responsible for the comments about the Dunkin' Donuts establishment. Brodie served a new subpoena seeking to identify these two posters as well as the three others whose identity had been protected by the court's early opinion on reconsideration. INI moved to quash this second subpoena, but the court denied the motion and ordered INI to comply.  INI appealed.

Update:

2/27/2009: The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the district court and quashed the subpoena.  It held that disclosure of the posters' identities would be improper because Brodie did not have a valid cause of action for defamation against any of them.  Specifically, the court held that Brodie could not obtain the identities of "CorsicaRiver," "chatdusoleil," and "Born &amp Raised Here" because the trial court had already ruled that their statements were not "of and concerning" him.  The court held that Brodie had no valid cause of action against "RockyRacoonMD" and "Suze" because the statute of limitations barred his any claim he might have had against them -- he had not named them in his original complaint nor timely moved to amend his complaint to include them. 

Pharmaceutical company Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. sued several named and anonymous Internet users in Arizone state court over negative posts about the company on the Yahoo! Finance and Silicon Investor message boards.  Although the court filings for the case are not available, filings in related actions state that Matrixx brought claims of defamation, trade libel, and interference with contractual relations and business expectancies.  See Matrixx Initiatives v. Doe, 138 Cal.App.4th 872, 875 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).  Matrixx alleged that it suffered "unusual" fluctuations in its stock as a result of the statements, including "relatively large-volume selling near the close of the market."  Id.

In an attempt to discern the identities of the anonymous users, Matrixx filed subpoenas against numerous individuals and organizations in other courts.  Two of these subpoenas are addressed in CMLP threat entries Matrixx Intiatives v. Barbary Coast Capital and Matrixx Initiatives v. Mulligan.  Matrixx also appears to have sought discovery in the Arizona court from Qwest Communications International Inc., but the details are not clear from the available record. 

According to the Arizona docket for the case, Matrixx voluntarily withdrew the case but reserved leave to refile at a later date.  The court granted the dismissal without prejudice on January 31, 2007.  As of December 04, 2008, Matrixx does not appear to have refiled the case.

On December 1, 2008, the blog-hosting service Blogger removed the blog titled "Jeffrey Denner's ineffective assistance of counsel" after Jeffrey Denner delivered to it a court order prohibiting Derrick Gillenwater from using the words "Jeffrey" or "Denner" or "Jeffrey Denner" in any blog postings. Blogger notified the anonymous operator of the blog, who goes by the moniker "Boston Bob."  On December 2, Boston Bob replied as follows: 

The problem is, I'm not Derrick Gillenwater, nor do I operate under his
authority.

I am an independent anonymous person.

Please repost my blog immediately.

Thank you.

Blogger restored the blog and indicated that it would notify Mr. Denner.

Boston Bob created the blog in mid-October 2008, after apparently meeting Derrick Gillenwater and discussing Gillenwater's malpractice lawsuit against Jeffrey Denner and Kevin Barron, two Boston lawyers. Gillenwater himself is a blogger, and at the time he also operated a blog dedicated to criticizing Jeffrey Denner and discussing the lawsuit at http://jeffreydenner.blogspot.com.

At around the same time that Boston Bob started his blog, Denner and Barron obtained a restraining order and then a preliminary injunction from a Massachusetts state court prohibiting Gillenwater from blogging about Denner and from filing motions or pleadings without prior permission of the court.  For details, see our database entry, Denner v. Gillenwater.

Boston Bob published only three posts before Blogger temporarily removed the blog, all of which related to Gillenwater's lawsuit and alleged malpractice on the part of Denner and Barron. Since the takedown, Boston Bob has published a series of posts criticizing the court's gag order as unconstitutional.

MCW, Inc., a company providing career counseling under the trademark "Bernard Haldane," sued Badbusinessbureau.com, LLC ("BBB") and Edward Magedson in Texas federal court for unfair competition and false advertising under the Lanham Act and trademark infringement and business disparagement under Texas law.  The lawsuit revolved around negative reports about Bernard Haldane services published on the Ripoff Report website, which provides a forum in which consumers may accuse companies and individuals of various "rip-off" and "bad business" practices. 

The complaint alleged that BBB and Magedson posted user reports containing false and defamatory statements about MCW's business, independently created defamatory titles, headings, and editorial comments, and used MCW's trademark in conjunction with the offering and selling of banner advertisements, third-party services, rebuttal and collection fees, and "Rip-Off Revenge" services. 

BBB and Magedson moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, arguing that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) immunized it from liability for publishing third-party content, that they did not use MCW's trademark in commercial advertising or promotion, and that there was no likelihood of confusion between the parties' services. 

In ruling on the motion, the court held that CDA 230 did not bar MCW's claim because it had alleged that BBB and Magedson created false and defamatory report titles, headings, and other editorial content.  It also determined that BBB and Magedson lost immunity by soliciting a consumer to create disparaging material.  Nevertheless, the court dismissed the federal unfair competition and false advertising claims, concluding that MCW lacked standing, that it could not show a likelihood of confusion as a matter of law, and that Ripoff Report did not use MCW's trademark in commercial advertising or promotion.  The court then declined to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety.

MCW appealed the ruling, but later voluntarily dismissed its appeal.

In February 2008, chiropractor Steven Biegel sued former patient Christopher Norberg and various John Doe defendants over a critical review that Norberg posted to consumer review website Yelp.com. According to the Complaint, the review accused Biegel of being dishonest and of engaging in fraudulent billing practices. Cmplt. ¶ 9.

After Biegel's counsel threatened to sue, Norberg removed his review from Yelp.  Biegel sued anyway, bringing claims of defamation and false light invasion of privacy against Norberg in his original Complaint and the (apparently identical) Amended Complaint.

In January 2009, the parties settled the case on undisclosed terms.  Norberg replaced an earlier Yelp posting in which he said he'd been sued with the following posting:

A misunderstanding between both parties led us to act out of hand. I chose to ignore Dr. Biegel's initial request to discuss my posting. In hindsight, I should have remained open to his concerns. Both Dr. Biegel and I strongly believe in a person's right to express their opinions in a public forum. We both encourage the Internet community to act responsibly.

Matrixx Initiatives filed a lawsuit in Arizona state court against anonymous posters who allegedly defamed the company on the Yahoo! Finance and Silicon Investor message boards. During that case and with the permission of the Arizona court, Matrixx obtained a subpoena in Maryland state court demanding that Timothy Mulligan appear for a deposition and produce documents.

Mulligan publishes an online newsletter on stocks and publicly traded companies called the Eyeshade Report.  In the August 2003 edition of the newsletter, Mulligan discussed allegations of accounting improprieties and other business problems at Matrixx. Originally, the Matrixx subpoena sought information regarding Mulligan's sources for the article and other materials related to Mulligan's newsgathering process.  Mulligan produced over three-hundred pages of documents in response to this subpoena.  Matrixx then obtained a second subpoena demanding that Mulligan appear for a deposition and asking him to disclose the names of every person who received the Eyeshade Report on Matrixx. Matrixx justified its discovery requests by explaining that the allegedly defamatory statements in the Arizona lawsuit were strikingly similar to the issues discussed in Mulligan's report.

Mulligan moved to quash the subpoena, but the court denied the motion.  On appeal, Public Citizen and several other organizations filed an amicus brief urging the appeals court to quash the subpoena. The amici argued that Mulligan qualified for a Maryland news media privilege that protects against forced revelation of sources and newsgathering information, and that enforcement of the subpoena would violate his readers' First Amendment rights to read anonymously.

The appeals court determined that the Eyeshade Report qualified for the news media privilege, but nonetheless affirmed the trial court's ruling that Matrixx could depose Mulligan.  The court indicated that Mulligan could raise his claim of privilege on a question-by-question basis.

Mulligan then appealed to the Maryland Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.  At this point, Matrixx dropeed the case.  Mulligan informs us that Matrixx ultimately never deposed him about his sources.

Two real estate companies, Parkmerced Investors Properties LLC and Stellar Larkspur Partners LLC, sued eighteen unknown defendants for violation of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), libel, and tortious interference with contract.  The lawsuit, filed in federal court in California, revolves around anonymous and pseudonymous postings to Apartment Ratings, a forum site that invites discussion about residential apartment buildings in locations throughout the United States.

Parkmerced Investors Properties LLC owns Parkmerced, a community of 3000+ units in San Francisco.  Stellar Larkspur Partners LLC owns the Larkspur Shores Apartment Homes, a community of about 350 apartments in Larkspur, California. In the last couple of years, users of Apartment Ratings have posted a large number of comments, both positive and negative, about these two properties.  Some of the postings deal with issues like increasing rents and other expenses, maintenance problems, construction noise, crime, and the responsiveness of management to complaints. 

In their complaint, Parkmerced and Stellar Larkspur identify eighteen allegedly false and misleading statements, all of which purport to relate personal experiences of persons living in or visiting the Parkmerced and Larkspur Shores properties.  They maintain that these false statements not only constitute libel, but violate the Lanham Act:  "Defendants' activities constitute false or misleading descriptions of fact and false or misleading representations of fact in violation of §43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)[,] because Defendants misrepresent the nature, characteristics and qualities of the Apartments." Cmplt. ¶ 33.  While this looks like a false advertising claim under  15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), there is some indication that the plaintiffs mean to bring a "general Lanham Act claim for misuse of trademark under section 43(a)[, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A)]."  Affidavit of Paul Alan Levy, ¶ 8.

Parkmerced and Stellar Larkspur have subpoenaed Apartment Ratings, asking for information identifying the authors of the critical comments made about them.  They asked for the identities of those users who wrote the eighteen statements quoted in the complaint, as well as other users who wrote things not specifically mentioned in the complaint.  One of those users contacted Paul Levy, who filed a brief asking the court for a protective order against the subpoena and moving to strike the plaintiffs' state-law claims under the California anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16). 

Mr. Levy argued that the website's anonymous posters have a qualified right to engage in anonymous speech, and that the plaintiffs' facially invalid Lanham Act claim cannot justify disclosing the posters' identities.  (Without the Lanham Act claim, the federal court has no subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, so the potential merit of the libel and tortious interference claims should not matter.)  Based on the same weakness, Mr. Levy argued that the plaintiffs could not establish the probability of success required to survive his client's anti-SLAPP motion to strike.