Dolen v. Ryals (Lawsuit) [1]

On December 22, 2008, Deborah Dolen, author of several "Do It Yourself" craft books, sued Julie Ryals and an unknown poster, listed on the complaint as "Jane Doe Libel Cyberstalker," for negative statements about Dolen that appeared on BustedScammers.com.  Dolen, acting pro se, alleged [2] internet fraud, cyberstalking, libel, defamation, and disparagement. She requested a temporary injunction shutting down Ryals' servers hosting The Design Shoppe.com and BustedScammers.com, as well as $100,000 for each "violation."

On January, 21, 2009, Dolen filed an amended complaint [3] which added Mary Joanne Kidd, Jeffery Kidd, and Mary Harvey as defendants alleging that Mary Kidd was the co-owner of BustedScammers.com and that Jeff Kidd and Harvey committed libel through chat room activity.  Dolen also added counts of trade libel and copyright infringement.  

On February 18, 2009, Ryals filed an answer and counterclaims [4] as well as a motion for summary judgment.  Ryals' answer denied that she had any ownership interest in BustedScammers.com, and her counterclaims alleged that Dolen defamed and slandered her on Topix.com.  Ryals' requested an injunction preventing Dolen from contacting her or posting information about her.  Ryals also alleges that Dolen is cybersquatting on JulieRyals.com and requests transfer of the domain name to her. The Kidds and Harvey submitted substantially similar answers, counterclaims [5], and motions for summary judgment.  

On February 27, 2009, the court determined Dolen's current claims may be adversely affected by her bankruptcy matter, and the court stayed the case [6] until bankruptcy proceedings concluded.  The court lifted the stay and reinstated [7] the defendants' claims against Dolen in September 2009.

On September 17, 2009, Kent Rowald, the defendants' lawyer, filed a third-party complaint [8] against Dolen, claiming that Dolen had defamed him. The court severed [9] Rowald's complaint from the case, and ordered both parties to remove from the Internet all critical comments each made about the other.

In October 2009, the court sua sponte ordered the case transferred [10] to the Middle District of Florida.

On June 17, 2010, Dolen filed a second amended complaint [11], wherein she made claims of trademark infringement, defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Ryals. Dolen's new complaint made no claims against Mary Kidd, Jeffery Kidd, or Mary Harvey. Both Ryals [12] and the Kidds [13] filed answers and counterclaims. The Kidds also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings [14], based on their absence from the second amended complaint.

On October 19, 2010, Dolen moved to be allowed to file a third amended complaint [15].

On February 24, 2011, the court granted [16] the Kidds' motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Dolen's claims against them with prejudice.  The court also dismissed the counterclaims the Kidds made in their response to Dolen's second amended complaint.  Further, the court denied Dolen's motion to file a third amended complaint.

Update:

April 18, 2011: A jury trial on the remaining claims in the case begins.

April 22, 2011: The court grants cross-motions for judgment as a matter of law [17], finding that Dolen had failed to present evidence legally sufficient to sustain her claims against Ryals, and that Ryals had failed to present evidence legally sufficient to sustain her counterclaim against Dolen.

April 25, 2011: The court enters judgment in favor of Ryals on Dolen's claims [18], and in favor of Dolen on Ryals's counterclaim [19].

May 5, 2011: The defendants move for an award of attorneys' fees, seeking $218,189.10 in attorney's fees and litigation costs.

Feburary 10, 2012: A magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation [20] that the defendants be awarded $6,300 in attorney's fees, identifying twelve frivolous motions filed by the plaintiff. The magistrate rejects the defendants' argument for further fees and costs.

March 22, 2012: The court adopts [21] the magistrate's report and recommendation, and orders the entry of judgment in favor of the defendants for 6,300.

March 23, 2012: Judgment [22] enters consistent with the March 22 order.