Ratingz, Inc. v. Adrian Philip Thomas, P.A. [1]

On February 22, 2012, Ratingz, Inc., operator of LawyerRatingz.com, a user-review site for reviewing attorneys, filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court in California.

According to Ratingz's complaint and the attached exhibits [2], the background to the declaratory judgment filing is as follows: On December 9, 2011, the managing partner of Florida law firm Adrian Philip Thomas, P.A. emailed Ratingz concerning a number of negative reviews of the firm on LawyerRatingz.com. That email requested the name of Ratingz's agent in Florida, so that Adrian Thomas could serve Ratingz with a complaint over the reviews.

On February 2, 2012, an attorney representing Adrian Thomas sent a cease and desist to Ratingz, stating that Ratingz had until the next day to remove all of Adrian Thomas's ratings from the site. This letter contended that neither CDA § 230 [3] nor California's Anti-SLAPP [4] law protected Ratingz.

On February 10, 2012, Adrian Thomas sent another letter to Ratingz. Along with this letter, the law firm sent a copy of the complaint Adrian Thomas was planning to file against Ratingz in Florida state court. The letter described some business the firm had lost because of poor reviews on LawyerRatingz.com, and also stated that the firm was planning to file a defamation lawsuit against the person who wrote one of the reviews. The closing of the letter stated that litigation was a "business decision," and that it would be more "cost effective" for Ratingz to remove Adrian Thomas from the reviews site than it would be to "stand on principle . . . regardless of whether you believe you will prevail."

The attached Draft Complaint against Ratingz detailed one of the reviews at issue, and described the unsuccessful steps Adrian Thomas had taken to get the review removed. This Draft Complaint would have sought an injunction to remove Adrian Thomas from LawyerReviewz.com during the litigation, and alleged one count of tortious interference with a business relationship.

In response to the threatened Florida litigation, Ratingz filed its declaratory judgment action in California. Its complaint contains four causes of action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, based on CDA § 230, the First Amendment, Florida tortious-interference law, and Florida's statute of limitation.

As of February 28, 2012, the case has been assigned [5] to a magistrate judge. 

Update:

On April 9, 2012, Ratingz filed a notice [6] of voluntary dismissal with prejudice.