On November 19, 2010, the Washington City Paper published "The Cranky Redskins Fan's Guide to Dan Snyder." The article levied a wide array of complaints about Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins NFL franchise since 1999. The complaints largely concerned his management of the team, as well as his control of several other business ventures.

On November 24, 2010, Washington Redskins General Counsel David Donovan wrote a letter on behalf of Dan Snyder to Atalaya Capital Management, an investment company that, according to the letter, purchased the City Paper out of bankruptcy in 2009. The letter alleges that the City Paper article, and its inclusion of a photograph of Snyder with drawn-in devil horns, goatee, and uni-brow, were anti-Semitic and that the allegations made regarding Snyder and his wife in the article were false and defamatory. The letter also suggests that the statements regarding Snyder may have been published at the direction of Atalaya Capital, which competes with RedZone Capital (an entity which Snyder co-founded).

On December 7, 2010, attorneys for Atalaya Capital responded to Snyder's letter, rejecting the assertion that Atalaya had control over the content of Washington City Paper, disputing the factual allegations made in the letter, and asserting City Paper's First Amendment right to criticize Snyder under Hustler Magazine v. Falwell.

On February 2, 2011, Snyder filed suit in the New York Supreme Court for New York County against Atalaya Capital, its portfolio company Creative Loafing, Inc., and 10 "John Doe" defendants. Snyder alleged that four statements made in the article were defamatory, and sought relief in excess of $2 million

On April 26, 2011, Snyder discontinued his action in New York and filed a second the complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, this time against Creative Loafing, Inc., Washington City Paper, and Dave McKenna, the author of the article.

Using DC's recently enacted anti-SLAPP law, the defendants brought a special motion to dismiss on June 17, 2011. The defendants argue that D.C. Code § 16-5502 protects the statements as they are "an act in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest" and that Snyder will not be "likely to succeed on the merits" of his claims.

According to the Blog of LegalTimes, Snyder filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss on August 1, 2011, in which he argues that the anti-SLAPP law in question is in violation of the Home Rule Act, the federal law which delegates some congressional control of the District of Columbia to the DC local government. On August 30, 2011, the District of Columbia intervened in the case for the limited purpose of defending the validity of the anti-SLAPP law.

Oral argument for the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled for October 14, 2011.

In the fall of 2006, D.J.M. was a 10th grade student in the public school system in Hannibal, Missouri. On October 24 of that year, D.J.M. sent a series of messages to a fellow classmate, C.M., over an instant messaging platform. The messages allude to D.J.M.'s ability to obtain a gun, and during the conversation D.J.M. speculates as to who he would shoot and who he would not amongst his peers. Both D.J.M. and C.M. show amusement and levity during the conversation, frequently adding interjections such as "haha" and "lol."

At some point during the conversation, C.M. became concerned and sent a transcript of the messages to an adult, who in turn contacted the principal of the high school. The principal called the district superintendent, who in turn called the police. The police visited D.J.M. that same evening, and placed him in juvenile detention; D.J.M. was later transferred to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation. He remained under hospital supervision until November 28, 2006.

In the interim, the school district placed D.J.M. under a suspension for the rest of the school year. D.J.M.'s parents appealed the suspension to the Hannibal school board, who affirmed the suspension. D.J.M. returned to high school the following year, and graduated ahead of the rest of his class.

On March 14, 2007, D.J.M. brought suit in Missouri state court, alleging that the suspension of D.J.M. violated his First Amendment right to free speech under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and requesting administrative review of the suspension determination under state law. The case was removed to the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in November 2008.

On January 25, 2010, the district court granted summary judgment for the defendant school distrcit on the section 1983 claim, and remanded the state law claim to the Missouri circuit court. The district court found the messages communicated by D.J.M. to be a "true threat" under Watts v. United States, as applied in the school setting by an en banc panel the Eighth Circuit in Doe v. Pulaski County Special School District. In the alternative, the court found authority for the school to punish the student, notwithstanding the First Amendment, under the "substantial interference" test in the student-speech line of cases following Tinker v. Des Moines.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court on August 1, 2011. The court affirmed under both the "true threat" rationale, as examined under Doe, and under the "substantial interference" grounds of Tinker. The court expressly rejected D.J.M.'s claim that the question as to whether the threat was a "true threat" is an issue of material fact. The court also allowed the "substantial interference" test of Tinker to be applied off campus, following the Second Circuit in Wisniewski v. Weedsport Central School District.

On February 11, 2011, former United States Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod filed in District of Columbia Superior Court a defamation lawsuit against Andrew Breitbart and Larry O'Connor, two individuals involved with the prominent conservative political blog BigGovernment.com. The complaint also names a John Doe defendant.

The complaint stems from a March 2010 speech Sherrod gave to the NAACP, and the defendants' subsequent treatment of that speech. On July 19, 2010, Breitbart posted on BigGovernment an edited video of Sherrod's speech, along with allegations that Sherrod carried out her USDA duties "through the prism of race and class distinctions." The complaint also discusses slides added to the video of the speech that allege that Sherrod "discriminates against people due to their race." Along with Breitbart's post discussing Sherrod's speech, the complaint also alleges that O'Connor posted the edited video to YouTube, and that the John Doe defendant provided Breitbart and O'Connor with the unedited video and assisted in editing it.

After the defendants' alleged actions, Sherrod left her job with the USDA; the complaint alleges that the White House asked for her resignation because of the edited video and ensuing media uproar. Sherrod's complaint alleges defamation (for the edited video, blog post, and a Twitter post promoting the video and post), false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and also seeks punitive damages.

The defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Sherrod responded by moving to remand, arguing that the other defendants knew that the John Doe lived in Georgia (where Sherrod lives), and that Doe's citizenship defeats federal diversity jurisdiction. The defendants opposed remand on the grounds that a John Doe defendant's citizenship is irrelevant for diversity-jurisdiction purposes.

On the same day (April 18) that they filed their opposition to remand, the defendants moved to dismiss, both pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b) and under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act. The Rule 12(b) motion argues improper venue (with an alternative request to move the case to California, where Breitbart and O'Connor live), as well as substantive grounds (that the blog post was non-actionable opinion, and that the edited video was an accurate depiction of Sherrod's speech). The anti-SLAPP motion incorporates the motion to dismiss in arguing that Sherrod cannot show that her claims are likely to succeed.

On May 19, Sherrod filed memoranda opposing both motions to dismiss. Her opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion argues, among other things, that the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act was passed after the lawsuit began and does not apply retroactively, and/or that it does not apply in federal court. Her opposition to the Rule 12(b) motion argues both that venue in D.C. is proper, and that the defendants' comments are non-opinion and "indefensible." Sherrod also filed a reply in further support of her motion to remand. On June 3, the defendants filed replies in support of both motions to dismiss.

John Giordano, president of a Florida-based addiction treatment company, filed suit (individually and on behalf of his company) against Donna Romeo over a posting on consumer-reporting website Ripoff Report. The post describes the treatment facility's conditions in harsh terms, and states that "one of the owners is a convicted felon."

The complaint names both Romeo and Ripoff Report's parent company, Xcentric Ventures; it alleges defamation (libel and libel per se) against Romeo, and seeks to permanently enjoin Ripoff Report (through Xcentric) from continuing to publish the post.

According to court transcripts, Giordano and Romeo eventually reached an agreement according to which the court would enter an injunction against Romeo, requiring her to ask Ripoff Report to remove the post. Ripoff Report's policy is to not remove posts. After Ripoff Report refused to remove the post, the trial court issued a temporary injunction against Xcentric. In so doing, the court found that because of the refusal to remove, Xcentric became "the publisher of the statements," thus outside the protections of 47 U.S.C. § 230.

Xcentric appealed, but withdrew that appeal shortly thereafter. A newly-assigned trial judge then dismissed the case against Xcentric, citing a number of cases for the proposition that Section 230 protects Ripoff Report. Giordano's appeal is pending in Florida's Third District Court of Appeals.

UPDATE:

On December 28, 2011, the Third District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Xcentric. In a brief five-page opinion, the court stated that while Xcentric's business practices were "appalling," and "created a forum for defamation," Section 230 provides complete immunity for internet service providers like Xcentric against actions based on third-party postings. The court's decision is not final until the disposition of any timely motion for rehearing that Giordano might file.

In March 2011, Joseph Rakofsky represented a defendant in a murder trial in Washington, D.C. According to court filings, on April 1 he withdrew as counsel, leading to a mistrial, at which time the presiding judge made a number of unflattering statements about Mr. Rakofsky's performance at trial. The Washington Post originally reported on the mistrial. Other publications, like the Washington City Paper, soon followed. From there, Mr. Rakofsky's story spread throughout the legal blogosphere, drawing comment from dozens of bloggers.

On May 11, Mr. Rakofsky filed suit in New York state court against the Post, the City Paper, and many bloggers who had written about him. At issue is the way Mr. Rakofsky's removal from the murder trial has been characterized: In his complaint, Mr. Rakofsky maintains that he left the murder trial by his own motion. Media coverage, like the Post article, focused on the judge's comments about Mr. Rakofsky's command of legal procedures, the fact that Mr. Rakofsky stated in court that he had never before tried a case, and an alleged email from Mr. Rakofsky to an investigator instructing the investigator to "trick" a witness into changing her testimony. The Post quotes the judge as telling Mr. Rakofsky that his trial performance was "below what any reasonable person would expect in a murder trial." A transcript of the judge's comments is now available. The bloggers sued by Mr. Rakofsky generally describe him as "too incompetent to handle the case," or otherwise suggest that the mistrial was due to Mr. Rakofsky's "inexperience."

Mr. Rakofsky initially sued 74 parties; the complaint often names both individual bloggers and their associated businesses. (For example, the complaint names both "The Law Offices of Michael T. Doudna" and "Michael T. Doudna, individually.")

The initial complaint contains two causes of action: (1) defamation, and (2) violations of sections 50 and 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law, alleging that defendants used Mr. Rakofsky's name and picture for commercial purposes without his consent.

On May 16, Mr. Rakofsky amended his complaint to add a count of intentional infliction of emotional distress and a count of interference with Mr. Rakofsky's contracts with other clients. The number of defendant parties also rose to 75.

As of June 1, 2011, some defendants apparently had not yet been served. 

On June 3, New York attorney Eric Turkewitz and Nevada attorney Marc Randazza, representing approximately 30 of the named defendants (including Mr. Turkewitz himself), motioned for a time extention for all defendants, to help organize what the motion calls "the oncoming blizzard of paperwork" as various defendants respond to the complaint. Mr. Turkewitz also submitted an affidavit in which he discussed the background of the case and the legal issues involved.

On June 4, New York attorney David Brickman, representing defendants Maxwell Kennerly and Mr. Kennerly's law firm The Beasley Firm, filed a motion to dismiss. The accompanying memorandum argues that Mr. Kennerly's blog post is a combination of opinion and fair reporting of court proceedings; thus, according to the memo, the case should be dismissed.

One June 13, Mr. Brickman, also representing Mirriam Seddiq and Jameson Koehler, filed two more motions to dismiss. The motions are mostly identical to Mr. Kennerly's motion.

Update:

6/13/2011 - Rakofsky's attorney, Richard Borzouye, files notice that on July 1 he will move to withdraw from the case. On the same day, acting pro se, Rakofsky files a memo opposing the pro hac admission of Marc Randazza.

6/15/2011 - Defendant Mace Yampolsky answers the complaint and asserts affirmative defenses including, inter alia, that the court lacks personal jurisdiction, that the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted, and that Rakofsky's lawsuit is frivolous. Yampolsky also seeks sanctions and attorneys' fees.

6/17/2011 - Marc Randazza and Eric Turkewitz file “reply affidavits” in support of Randazza's pro hac admission; the "affidavits" discuss communication between Rakofsky, Borzouye, and the defense.

6/22/2011 - Reuters and its reporter Daniel Slater file notice of a motion to dismiss. The motion and accompanying memo discuss the merits of the defamation and misappropriation claims.

On the same day, Eric Turkewitz files an affidavit, partially opposing Richard Borzouye's motion to withdraw as Rakofsky's attorney. Turkewitz expresses concern with the corporate plaintiff's impending lack of counsel.

6/24/2011 - Defendant Michael Doudna files notice of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the motion also seeks sanctions against Rakofsky for bringing a "frivolous" lawsuit in "bad faith." Harmony Kenney, who operated Doudna's website, files a supporting affidavit.

7/20/2011 - The Washington Post, its reporter Keith Alexander, and its researcher Jennifer Jenkins, move to dismiss. The motion discusses both substantive issues (including that the Post article is protected by the fair report privilege) and jurisdictional issues (long-arm jurisdiction over Alexander and Jenkins).

7/21/2011 - Georgia attorney Jeanne O'Halleran files a motion to dismiss, and an accompanying affidavit. The memorandum in support of the motion argues, inter alia, a lack of personal jurisdiction and that O’Halleran’s statements were a fair and accurate report, and asks for sanctions. The filings include a copy of the D.C. murder-trial transcript from the day before the mistrial, and a copy of the investigator's "motion" that raised ethical issues.

On the same day, the Washington City Paper and its associated defendants file a motion to dismiss on similar grounds, along with affidavits from its reporter, publisher, and parent company VP/CFO. The City Paper and O'Halleran are both represented by Davis Wright Tremaine.

7/22/2011 - The trial court grants Richard Borzouye's motion to withdraw as Rakofsky's attorney. The court stays proceedings until September 14, to allow Rakofsky to find a new attorney.

6/28/2012 - The court (Hagler, J.) holds a hearing on the pending motions to dismiss and on a motion by Rakofsky to submit a second amended complaint. The defendants, through selected representatives among defense counsel, and the plaintiffs, represented by a new attorney (Matthew Goldsmith, Esq.), argue the application to Rakofsky's claims of the fair report privilege, the republication privilege (for those defendants who republished an original account in the Washington Post), 47 U.S.C. § 230 (for one defendant who operates an online forum), Rakofsky's status as a public figure, and assorted jurisdictional issues. Plaintiffs' counsel also argue that new claims that they have proposed to add to the case are not duplicative of their defamation claim. At the end of the hearing, Judge Hagler took the motions under advisement, but stated to plaintiffs' counsel:

...Right now there's a very high standard to hold a newspaper liable for -- pardon the pun -- for libel, l-i-b-e-l. ... I don't see how you make that burden. And what I suggest is, is that you seriously speak to your client about withdrawing all these claims. And at the end of the day, I'm going to make a decision. I don't think it's going to be -- based upon this argument, and I'm not making a ruling now, it doesn't look like it's going to be in your favor.

(Transcript p. 91, ll. 10-20).

7/1/2012 - Rakofsky, in a letter to the court over his own name, argues that his proposed claim for negligence in his second amended complaint is not duplicative of his defamation claim.

1/2/2013 - After a six month period in which plaintiffs did not withdraw their claims as urged by the court at the June 28, 2012 hearing, the defendants represented by the Turkewitz Law Firm and Randazza Legal Group file a motion for sanctions against plaintiffs and attorney Goldsmith for vexatious conduct and frivolous claims.

 4/29/2013 - The court consolidated all pending motions and issued an order addressing these motions. The court dismissed claims for lack of personal jurisdiction against the defendants that so moved, finding that Rakofsky did not establish that the defendants engaged in any purposeful activity and minimum contacts in New York, such that New York's long-arm jurisdiction statute would apply. The court also granted the motions to dismiss on the defamation claim substantively, finding that the defendants' statements regarding the mistrial were not defamatory, the allegations of incompetence and substance of the allegations of bad ethical behavior were protected by New York's fair report privilege, and all other statements were either opinions based on disclosed facts or pure opinion. The parties that republished or summarized the Washington Post story were also found to have a valid wire service republication defense.

The court also dismissed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, finding no showing of the requisite "extreme and outrageous conduct," and the intentional interference with contract claim, finding that claim inadequately  pleaded. The court dismissed the misappropriation of name or likeness claims under N.Y. Civil Law §§ 50-51, finding this reporting under the "newsworthiness" exception to those claims.

The court denied Rakofsky's leave to amend the petition to add claims of injurious falsehood, prima facie tort, and negligence, finding the injurious falsehood and negligence claims duplicative, and finding that Rakofsky will be unable to to plead special damages for the prima facie tort.

The court also denied without prejudice Rakofsky's motions to discontinue the action against eight of the defendants, and for default judgment against seven of the plaintiffs, because Rakofsky did not adequately identify the parties at issue. As to the motion for default, the court advised Rakofsky to consider "if it is appropriate to seek this relief again based on the rulings herein." The court declined to issue sanctions sought by both sides.

On August 16, 2010, counsel for Colocation America and Mr. Albert Ahdoot sent a cease-and-desist letter to Archie Garga-Richardson, the founder and operator of ScamFraudAlert.com. ScamFraudAlert.com is a forum site that focuses on alleged Internet scams, security threats, and fraudulent practices.  The letter accused Garga-Richardson of trade libel and tortious interference with contractual relations, and demanded that he sign a statement (which was attached to the letter) retracting his comments.  The letter warned that if he did not sign the statement of retraction, Colocation America would file a civil complaint, which counsel also included with the letter, against him.

Update:

10/29/2010 - Colocation America filed suit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

On June 28, 2010, Righthaven LLC, a Las Vegas company associated with Las Vegas Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the website company Vote for the Worst ("VFTW") LLC and two of its managers, David Della Terza and Nathan Palmer.  Righthaven sued VFTW after a user posted a Las Vegas Review-Journal article on the site's forum.

On August 16, 2010, VFTW moved to dismiss.  VFTW argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction because none of the defendants are residents of or have sufficient contacts with Nevada.  The court denied VFTW's motion on March 30, 2011.

VFTW filed an answer on April 13, 2011, asserting defenses of fair use, lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction, and innocent infringement. 

Update:

4/17/2011 - VFTW filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, based on the recently-unsealed agreement that purported to assign Stephens Media's copyright in various content to Righthaven.  Hoehn argued that the agreement, which was unsealed by the court hearing Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC, shows that Righthaven lacks the standing to sue because Righthaven was not the exclusive holder of any rights in the copyrighted material at issue in the lawsuit.  Under Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entm’t, Inc., 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005), a plaintiff must be the exclusive holder in a copyright to sue.  Under the unsealed agreement, Stephens Media retained exclusive rights in the works, thereby preventing Righthaven from being able to sue on the copyright.