First Call Properties and its officers filed suit against AAA Apartment Locating and Craigslist in Texas state court, alleging, among other claims, trademark infringement, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious interference.  According to the complaint, First Call began posting advertisements on Craigslist's Corpus Christi site using their trademark phrase "First Call" in March of 2009.  Shortly thereafter, AAA allegedly began posting advertisements to the same Craigslist local site using the words "first call," "call first," and "call us first."  (Compl. 3.)  First Call alleges that AAA posted these ads "deliberately and intentionally in an effort to confuse the public into believing the ads were posted by [First Call]."  (Compl. 3.)  It also claims that AAA's ads contained "false, libelous and misleading information" about First Call.  (Compl. 4.)

First Call asserts that it sent multiple cease and desist notices to AAA, with copies sent to Craigslist.  Based partly on this, it asserts that Craigslist knew of AAA's "unauthorized practice" and did nothing to stop it, materially contributing to AAA's alleged infringement.  (Compl. 5.)  First Call is seeking temporary and permanent injunctions and damages.

On May 29, 2009, the Nueces County District Court entered a temporary restraining order, barring AAA from posting ads containing phrases such as "first call," "call first," or "call us first," which might cause confusion and deceive the public; using a telephone logo similar to that used by First Call; making false or defamatory statement about First Call or its officers, agents, or employees; or causing ads posted by First Call to be removed from Craigslist or any other public domain.  Craigslist was barred from removing legitimate ads posted by First Call. 

The temporary restraining order was made reciprocal by the court, pursuant to an agreement by the parties, thus barring First Call from using AAA's trademarks, making false or defamatory statements about AAA, or causing AAA's ads to be removed.  It was also extended to include Stephan Noak and Sarah Regmund, owner of Free Apartment Locators, neither of whom are parties to the litigation.

On June 26, 2009, the case was removed to the federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  A hearing is scheduled for July 29 before Judge Janis Graham Jack.

UPDATE: 

07/15/09- First Call filed a motion to dismiss the case against Craigslist. However, it continued its suit against the other parties. 

On February 19, 2009, lawyers representing Sam Sethi, a former employee of TechCrunch and former CEO of now-defunct BlogNation, sent a letter to TechCrunch co-founder Michael Arrington threatening suit "within the jurisdiction of the High Court of England and Wales, at the Royal Courts of Justice (in London, UK)" for libel. 

The basis for the suit is a series of allegedly defamatory posts on CrunchNotes (the TechCrunch blog) which stated, according to the letter, that:

• "[S]ome of [Sethi's] former writers have accused him of fraud and other crimes."
• Sethi "had threatened to kill" one of his former business associates.
• Sethi was "involved in '. . . usury, fraud even'" (quoting from a blog post by Oliver Starr).
• Sethi is "predisposed to making threats of violence and making others feel threatened by him and being thoroughly deceitful."

Sethi is also suing based upon the "posting [of] a confidential (and stolen) termsheet from [BlogNations'] VC funders," which, according to Sethi's lawyers, "seriously jeopardize[d]" the BlogNation's funding.  Sethi is asking TechCrunch to remove all posts that include allegedly false accusations about him, publish an apology, undertake "not to repeat the same or similar libels again," pay his legal costs, and donate damages to a charity or "towards fees of those unpaid editors at Blognation who had remained faithful to the end."

Michael Arrington replied to Sethi's letter through his lawyers, asserting that TechCrunch is "not susceptible to the jurisdiction of English courts" and that an English judgment would not be recognized or enforced by US courts.  He also provided evidence, mostly in the form of blog posts and comments by others, that he believes supports the veracity of the statements made in the CrunchNotes posts at issue.  TechCrunch has also offered Sethi the opportunity to submit a reply "concerning the challenged statements" that would be posted "with equal prominence to [TechCrunch's] previous posts about him."

According to TechCrunch, a lawsuit was filed on June 28, 2009. Based on third party reports, the lawsuit appears to have been filed in the United Kingdom.

B.F. Shaw Printing, the Northwest Herald’s parent company, filed a lawsuit against Cal Skinner Jr.,  a local blogger, for alleged defamatory comments, regarding the Herald's past funding and supposed political bias, that he posted on his blog.

Shaw's three-count complaint claims defamation, false light, and commercial disparagement arising from a June 3 post "Borrowing on Borrowing " on Skinner's blog, mchenrycountyblog.com. The post, repeated in Shaw's complaint, read in part (Compl. Count I ¶ 4):

[W]ho could forget the multimillion loan to the Northwest Herald at sub-market rates. . . . the NW Herald was not an 'in extremis' condition then. The excuse for loaning the money was to keep the county newspaper from moving out of the county. The real reason was to put the paper in the back pocket of the Republican Party. (Anyone want to deny the strategy worked?)

Shaw's complaint states that it “has never been the recipient of any loan, from any public body, at market or sub-market rates “ (Compl. Count I ¶ 7), “is not, and never has been, ‘in the back pocket’ or under the control or influence of the McHenry County Republican Party” ( Compl. Count I ¶ 8) and “is not now, and has never been ‘in extremis’ condition.” (Compl. Count I ¶ 9). Shaw claims that Skinner's statements "impugn the financial and editorial integrity of [the Northwest Herald]" and they "constitute defamation per se." (Compl. Count I - ¶¶ 20, 22).

Skinner, in his answer to the complaint, admitted to writing the post and claimed that his statements were true. (Answer at p. 10). He attached a copy of Resolution R-8511-02-86 from the McHenry County Board, which he claims shows that “the plaintiff was a participant in and beneficiary of a $2.6 million dollar loan, with interest at 80% of prime, from the McHenry County Board.” (Answer describing Ex. 1).

Skinner also offered 14 additional affirmative defenses including: failure to mitigate, unclean hands, failure to state an actual injury, and fair reporting privilege for “statements relat[ing] to matters of governmental affairs.” (Answer at p. 12 – 13).

Skinner countersued Shaw for bringing a frivolous suit, defamation, and false light. Skinner claims he was defamed by an article published by the Northwest Herald concerning the original lawsuit,  "Northwest Herald's owner sues blogger, claims defamation." The article, according to Skinner, “essentially parroted the allegations set forth in the lawsuit, but also contained the following . . . statement: Northwest Herald Publisher John Rung said Skinner’s assertions were ‘reckless and completely fabricated.’”(Answer at p. 22-26). 

Update:

1/29/10 - press accounts report a settlement.

Robert Salyer sued the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in Kentucky state court over allegedly defamatory content in its print and online magazine, "Intelligence Report," which he claims stated that "he had been disbarred from practicing in military courts and also that he had received a dishonorable discharge."  (Compl. ¶ 3.)  The article at issue seems to have been edited at some point to remove the allegedly defamatory content, but re-posts at Crime and Criminals and The Experiment maintain the original content.

The SPLC removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss the suit as barred by the statute of limitations.  Although the district court judge agreed that the suit was filed after Kentucky's one-year statute of limitations on defamation actions had run, he denied the motion pending discovery, as "changes to the website’s content may exist that would constitute substantial modification."  (Op. Den. Mot. to Dismiss 7.)  Such modifications would constitute republication of the allegedly defamatory content, and would thus "reset the clock" on the statute of limitations.

On April 28, 2009, Salyer amended his complaint, adding a claim of outrage (also known as intentional infliction of emotional distress).  The judge granted the SPLC's motion to dismiss this new claim since Kentucky law bars an outrage claim where a plaintiff's other tort claims allow damages for emotional distress, as defamation does.

On July 4, 2009, an attorney for Alaska Governor Sarah Palin sent an open letter to Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, the Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times, The Washington Post, and other news organizations threatening to file defamation lawsuits if they claimed "as 'fact' that Governor Palin resigned because she is 'under federal investigation' for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing." 

Attorney Thomas Van Flein states in the letter:

To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as "fact" that Governor Palin resigned because she is "under federal investigation" for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation. This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law. 

According to Politico, neither the New York Times nor The Washington Post "made any mention of the embezzlement rumors in their Saturday editions, but sources close to Palin consider the letter a warning shot to stay away from the topic."

Administrators of the employee healthcare plan for the city of Decatur, Illinois filed a defamation lawsuit against Macon County Shared Vision, a concerned-citizens group that criticized high healthcare costs in several website postings.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Illinois anti-SLAPP statute, which was passed by the legislature but not signed by the governor before the suit was filed.  The Illinois court held that the anti-SLAPP statute's dismissal provision applied retroactively to the case, but that the its costs and fees provision did not. The court also rejected the administrators' argument that the anti-SLAPP law was unconstitutional under the Illinois Constitution.

The administrators subsequently moved to voluntarily dismiss the complaint, and the court granted the motion over Macon County Shared Vision's objection. In April 2009, Macon County Shared Vision appealed the decision to grant voluntary dismissal and to not award fees and costs.

Update:

August 24, 2009 - Macon County Shared Vision appealed the voluntary dismissal of the case and argues that the cost and fees provision of Illinois' anti-SLAPP statute does apply retroactively to the case.

Skutt Catholic High School sued anonymous Wikipedia posters over critical edits posted to the school's Wikipedia page in 2006. The posts criticized the quality of education at the school and its high tuition, used vulgar language, and referenced student drug use. After filing suit, the school subpoenaed Cox Communications, the ISP for the IP addresses used to make the postings. A spokesman from Cox Communications told the Student Press Law Center that the company would comply with the subpoena "unless there are further developments in the case, which quashes that order." The CMLP has been unable to determine whether Cox Communications ultimately complied and what ultimately happened in the underlying lawsuit.

Faris and Ruhanieh Badi'i sued Nikki Foote in Nevada state court for defamation after Foote posted a disparaging comment on eBay claiming a bag she had purchased from the Bad'i'is was a fake.

The Badi'is, of Austin, Texas, alleges Foote, whom they identified as eBay buyer nikki809, was asked to remove the posting because the $495 handbag is authentic, the Las Vegas Sun reported. Bad'i'i alleges Foote refused the request as well as a removal request from eBay.

The Sun said Badi'i is seeking $1,000 for each day between the June 10 posting of nikki809's comment and a future time when the Badi'is' sales figures reach pre-June 10 levels. The suit also seeks the removal of the comment and $50,000 in general damages.

Update:

Sept. 2010: The Badi'is moved to dismissed their lawsuit against Foote after Foote declared bankruptcy, the Las Vegas Sun reported.  The Badi'is considered continuing pursuing Foote as a creditor in her bankruptcy case, but decided against. The court granted the Badi'is' motion and dismissed the case on Nov. 8, 2010.

John Cafiero, a rock musician and manager of punk bands The Ramones and The Misfits, filed suit against Doug Custer (a/k/a Doug Evil) alleging in his complaint that Custer infringed his copyright by posting an animated video featuring The Misfits on YouTube.com and other websites.  Cafiero also brought a claim of misrepresentation under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, arguing that Custer lied on his DMCA counter-notification by claiming a copyright interest in the video.

Alongside the copyright allegations, Cafiero alleged defamation and false light arising from various Internet postings Custer allegedly made that criticized Cafiero.  Many of these arose from spoof site Osuka Papsmear, which Cafiero asserts is a Custer blog dedicated to defaming Cafiero and his band Osaka Popstar.

Early in the case, Cafiero received a default judgment against Custer after Custer did not appear or answer the complaint.  Appearing pro se, Custer successfully challenged the default judgment and filed his answer and counterclaims.  Custer's lengthy counterclaims, which discuss Cafiero's business dealings in depth, appear to bring claims of copyright infringement and defamation.  Custer's filings maintain that he himself authored most of the material appearing in the video and that Cafiero reneged on his promises regarding publication and use of the video.

On November 11, 2008, Cafiero filed a motion to dismiss Custer's counterclaims for failure to comply with rules of civil procedure, asking in the alternative for Custer to file a more definite statement.  Custer opposed the motion and filed a more definite statement.

On May 22, 2009, the parties agreed to submit the case to mediation proceedings, and the judge referred the case to mediation on June 1. The defendant consented to appointed counsel for the mediation process only.

On May 28, Cafiero moved to file an amended complaint that would add two more plaintiffs --  Jerry Caiafa (a/k/a Jerry Only), who composed music for the video; and Cyclopian Music, Inc., the owner of The Misfits trademarks. The motion also sought to add counts of copyright infringement arising from use of Caiafa's work; trademark infringement under  Section 32 of the Lanham Act; and false designation of origin and unfair competition under Section 43 of the Lanham Act. The defendant opposed the motion to amend the complaint, asserting that adding more plaintiffs would conflict with the purpose of mediation.

Lawyers from the Healthcare Information Management and Systems Society (HIMSS), a health care industry trade group, sent letters to two bloggers demanding that they remove allegedly offensive and defamatory user comments, provide any information that may help in the identification of the comment posters, and preserve all records relating to the posters.  Specifically, the letters concern a comment by “Rocky Ostrand” on Chip Hart's blog, “Confessions of a Pediatric Practice Consultant,” which is hosted at pedsource.com, a service provided by Physician's Computer Company (PCC); and comments by “Calvin Jablonski” on the blog of Chilmark Research.

Both bloggers have posted responses to the letters, refusing to remove the allegely defamatory comments or provide information to aid in identifying the potentially pseudonymous commenters.  Both have, however, offered to post any response to the comments which HIMSS may wish to make.  At this point, it does not appear that HIMSS has taken either blogger up on this offer.