Defamation

Virgin America v. Adrants Publishing

Date: 

01/26/2009

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Adrants Publishing, LLC; Steve Hall; Angela Natividad; Nina Aldredge

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Case Number: 

3:09-cv-00337-BZ

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Material Removed

Description: 

California-based airline Virgin America filed a six-count complaint against the publisher and editors of Adrants, a blog focused on the advertising industry, after it published a post that was paired with a fake ad containing the Virgin logo and the statement, "The Hudson Crash: Just One More Reason to Fly Virgin."  The post has since been removed, but a cached version is available here.

Virgin filed its complaint on January 26, 2009, alleging:

The advertisement consisted of a photograph of the crash of US Airways flight 1549 from January 15, 2009 depicted under the heading “The Hudson Crash: Just One More Reason to Fly Virgin." The posting had an express assertion by Adrants Co-Editor Natividad about the apparent validity of the Virgin America advertisement. However, the depicted photograph was not a Virgin America advertisement and the advertisement was in no way sponsored by or affiliated with Virgin America. Defendants’ posting of the false advertisement on the Adrants.com website was likely to cause consumer confusion as to source, affiliation or sponsorship; was likely to and tended to dilute and tarnish the distinctive nature of and reputation ascribed to Virgin America’s famous name and trademark; and was likely to generate the false belief among consumers that Virgin America had sponsored, endorsed, was affiliated with, and supported Defendants and Adrants.com. 

Virgin's lawsuit asserts claims for trademark and trade name infringement, false designation of origin and false and deceptive advertising, trademark dilution, false and misleading statements, and defamation.

According to press accounts:

In response to a Virgin America email demanding that the picture be removed, Angela Natividad, a head honcho at Adrants, added this copy above the original post: "UPDATE: Clearly, this ad is fake. A spoof. Virgin America has confirmed this. We were always supect from the get go and didn't mean to mislead or misrepresent. So we'll clearly state now: the ad is a spoof. It's not real. Virgin America had nothing to do with its creation."

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Garrett v. The Hook

Date: 

12/19/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Better Publications, L.L.C.; Lindsay Barnes; Courteney Stuart

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization
Media Company

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Circuit Court for the County of Buckingham, Virginia

Case Number: 

CL08000197-00

Legal Counsel: 

Garrett M. Smith (for Better Publications, L.L.C.)

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Settled (total)

Description: 

Thomas Garrett, a Virginia chicken farmer, publicist, and self-proclaimed "Hollywood insider," sued the publisher of The Hook, a weekly newspaper in Charlottesville that also publishes content on its website. The complaint, filed in Virginia state court in December 2008, alleges that The Hook and two of its reporters defamed Garrett in a series of articles covering state criminal proceedings against him. Specifically, Garrett alleges that one article falsely claimed that he had committed acts of forgery (he pled guilty to a "minor count akin to trespassing" according to the complaint), and that another two articles falsely implied that he had lied about appearing on the cover of Senior Magazine.

In January 2009, Garrett subpoenaed Waldo Jaquith, who runs cvillenews.com, a community news blog about Charlottesville. The subpoena requests identifying information for everyone who posted comments to a blog post Jaquith wrote about Garrett's lawsuit, called "The Hook Sued For Defamation." The subpoena also seeks IP addresses for every viewer of the post. Beyond that, it asks Jaquith for every email or written communication he has sent or received relating to the post or Thomas Garrett, as well as any post, comment, or other writing Jacquith has made on other sites. For more information, see our related database entry, Garrett v. Jaquith.

Update:

4/14/09 - James Creekmore withdrew as Garrett's attorney, according to an article in the Hook.

5/22/09 - Waldo Jacquith reported that Garrett settled his lawsuit with The Hook.  Jacquith wrote that, according to Hook editor Hawes Spencer, "Garrett has agreed to have the case settled with prejudice (meaning he can’t sue the paper again) and, in exchange, they’ve agreed not to sue him."

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

Google Blogs

Judge Orders Google to Notify "Skanks in NYC" Blogger of Discovery Request

Wendy Davis of MediaPost reports that the blogger behind the Skanks in NYC blog will keep his/her identity secret for another four weeks.  In a hearing yesterday in New York Supreme Court, Judge Joan Madden refused to rule on model Li

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

Benitah v. Law

Date: 

10/31/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Linda Law; Yelp! Inc.; TheSqueekyWheel Inc.

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco

Case Number: 

CGC-08-481471

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Material Removed

Description: 

In October 2008, David Benitah, a San Francisco-based immigration attorney and business consultant, sued Linda Law and consumer review websites Yelp and TheSqueakyWheel.com for defamation and trade libel in a California state court. The complaint alleges that the defendants "published false statements regarding plaintiff on the internet," but does not identify any specific statements. Law's negative review of Benitah is still posted on the SqueakyWheel.com, but Yelp appears to have taken the material down.

On January 21, 2009, the court ordered Benitah to appear in court on February 17 to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to serve the defendants and file proof of service within 60 days of filing the complaint.

Update:

2/4/2009 - Benitah filed response to order to show cause

2/5/2009 -  Proof of service order to show cause hearing set for 2/17/2009 ordered off the calendar by the court

3/18/2009 - Order to show cause hearing set for 5/18/2009, later continued to 6/29/2009

Both Benitah  and Globolex have noow elected to represent themselves Pro Se.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

User Feedback

CMLP Notes: 

Deborah Gage at SF Chronicle

VAF 2/19/2009 

AVM 6/12/09 - Updated from docket. 

Subject Area: 

Internet Solutions v. Garga-Richardson (3rd Lawsuit)

Date: 

01/09/2009

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Archie Garga-Richardson

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida

Legal Counsel: 

Archie Garga-Richardson (Pro Se)

Publication Medium: 

Email

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

Internet Solutions filed a defamation lawsuit against Archie Garga-Richardson in Florida state court in January 2009.  The complaint alleges that Garga-Richardson sent a defamatory email to four Internet Solutions employees in connection with another Internet Solutions lawsuit against him in California.  The California lawsuit revolves around statements made on Garga-Richardson's website ScamFraudAlert.  See Internet Solutions v. Garga-Richardson (2nd Lawsuit) for details. 

Update:

02/02/2009 - Garga-Richardson filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

User Feedback

CMLP Notes: 

Randazza and Archie Garga-Richardson let us know about this one.

Sandra Caron European Spa v. Kerber

Date: 

05/10/2006

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Malagorzata Kerber; Janusz Kerber

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo; California Court of Appeal of the First Appellate District

Case Number: 

CIV454815 (trial level); No. A117230 (appellate level)

Legal Counsel: 

Allen J. Capeloto (withdrawn); Richard M. Kelley

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

In May 2006, Sandra Caron European Spa, based in San Mateo, California, sued a former employee and her husband for trade libel over critical reviews about the Spa on Yahoo.com and consumer review website Yelp.com.  According to court decision in the case: 

A Yahoo.com user posted a review of Caron Spa on January 17, 2006. It stated: "My first impression was its tacky d[é]cor. Then I encountered an extremely rude [E]uropean gentlemen, I believe this is the owner. From what I could see, the employees are miserable and tired. When I went into the steam room I saw mildew and brown spots on the walls.... I could not even sit in there. I went for my massage, and that was ok. But the room had a strange smell and the blankets were dingy. It was also very cold. I guess the owner does not put on the heat. There is just too much to go on about. I will never go there again, and I will make sure I will tell as many people as I can about the horrible experience that I had."

Another review, posted on Yelp.com under the user name "Pippi L.," appeared on March 5, 2006. Pippi L. wrote: "One star is even too much for this place. First of all, when I walked in there it looked lik[e] selling a whole bunch of useless things you'll wind up selling at a garage sale. The serv[ice was] horrible. I had this creepy old [E]uropean man helping me and he was just outright rude. [The] guy was acting as if he was doing me a favor by letting me come to his spa.... And what was with the 18 [percent] service charge? ? ? It's questionable that the therapists or the providers ever receive it. My massage was ok and that was the only highlight of this.... And their sauna and steam room ... was really disgusting. Their lounge are was just full of tacky decorations as what I've heard they've been around for a long time, and I really don't understand why.... I would never come back and much would rather go to the spa at my gym."

Sandra Caron European Spa, Inc. v. Kerber, 2008 WL 3976463, at *2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).

On July 31, 2006, defendants filed a special motion to strike the complaint under California's anti-SLAPP law.  The trial court ultimately denied the motion, finding that Caron Spa had made a preliminary showing that the Kerbers conspired to commit trade libel with third parties not named as defendants in the case.  See Sandra Caron European Spa, 2008 WL 3976463, at *3.

The Kerbers appealed, and a California appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, albeit on other grounds.  The appellate court held that the statements in question were not made in connection with "a matter of public interest," which is required to trigger the protection of the anti-SLAPP law.  Id. at *4-7.  The court specifically rejected the argument that all "discussion on internet sites is protected speech" under the anti-SLAPP law.  Id. at *7. 

The case is currently pending in the trial court. 

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

User Feedback

CMLP Notes: 

Via Wendy Davis at MediaPost

Priority: 

1-High

Styger v. Johnson

Date: 

07/10/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Deborah J. Johnson; Does 1 - 10

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco

Case Number: 

CGC-08-477322

Legal Counsel: 

Mark A Goldowitz - California Anti-SLAPP Project

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Description: 

In July 2008, Joseph Styger, a San Francisco dentist, sued former patient Deborah Johnson and various John Doe defendants over a critical review that Johnson posted to consumer review website Yelp.com.  According to the Complaint, the review falsely accused Styger of being an "unethical dentist." Cmplt. ¶ 6.

On August 22, 2008, Johnson filed a special motion to strike the complaint under California's anti-SLAPP law.  The court granted the motion to strike on September 23, 2008, finding that "plaintiff has not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his claim against Johnson" due to the California's one-year statute of limitations for defamation. See California Code of Civil Procedure 340(c).

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

User Feedback

CMLP Notes: 

from Wendy Davis at MediaPost

Priority: 

1-High

Hobbs v. Pasdar

Date: 

11/25/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Natalie Pasdar; Natalie Pasdar, Emily Robinson, and Martha Seidel d/b/a Dixie Chicks

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal
State

Court Name: 

9th Division of the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas; United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

Case Number: 

No. CV 08-13038 (state); 4:09-cv-00008 (federal)

Legal Counsel: 

D'Lesli M. Davis, Dan D. Davison - Fulbright & Jaworski; John E. Moore - Huckabay, Munson, Rowlett & Moore, P.A.; Robert B. Wellenberger - Thomson, Coe, Cousins, & Irons, L.L.P

Publication Medium: 

Verbal
Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)
Material Removed

Description: 

Terry Hobbs sued Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines and her band mates in Arkansas state court for defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after Maines published a open letter on the band's website and MySpace blog that allegedly "accused [Hobbs] of committing the murder of Steve Branch, Christopher Byers and Michael Moore." Compl. ¶ 15.

In the letter, Maines (who was sued under her married name, Natalie Pasdar) encouraged readers to support the movement to free the so-called "West Memphis Three" -- Damien Echols, Jesse Misskelley, and Jason Baldwin –-three teenagers who were convicted of murdering three eight-year-old boys in 1994. The underlying story is chronicled in the HBO documentaries, Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills and Paradise Lost 2: Revelations, which cast doubt on the guilt of the three teenagers.

In the letter, a copy of which is attached as an exhibit to the complaint, Maines claimed that DNA evidence from the crime scene and other evidence linked Hobbs to the murders rather than Echols, Misskelley, and Baldwin. In so doing, she appears to have relied on Echols's petition for a writ of habeus corpus challenging his conviction. The complaint also alleges that Maines made defamatory statements at a "Free the West Memphis Three" rally.

Maines and her co-defendants removed the case to Arkansas federal court in January 2009. In their answer, Maines and the Dixie Chicks assert the fair report privilege as an affirmative defense, claiming that "[a]ll statements Defendants allegedly made were part of an official report and/or a public meeting."

UPDATE

7/20/09 - Hobbs filed a motion for partial summary judgment.

8/21/09 - Pasdar filed a motion for summary judgment.

8/24/09 - Maquire, Robison and Dixie Chicks filed a motion for summary judgment, adopting the arguments made by Pasdar.

12/01/09 - The court granted summary judgment to Pasdar, Maquire, Robison, and Dixie Chicks and dismissed the case with prejudice.

04/19/10 - Press accounts report that the court ordered Hobbs to pay to Maines $17,590 to cover her legal fees. 

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Johnson v. ComplaintsBoard.com

Date: 

06/26/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Elizabeth Arden d/b/a ComplaintsBoard.com; ComplaintsBoard.com; Michelle Reitenger; InMotion Hosting, Inc.; Melanie Lowry; Kathleen Heineman

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization
Intermediary

Court Type: 

Federal
State

Court Name: 

Circuit Court of Putnam County, Missouri; United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri

Case Number: 

No. 08AJ-CC0047 (state court); No. 5:08-cv-6103 (federal court)

Legal Counsel: 

Stacey R. Gilman, Katherine K. Gonzalez - Berkowitz, Oliver, Williams, Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP-MO (for Defendant Heineman); Raymond E. Probst, Jr. - The Probst Law Firm P.A. (for Defendant InMotion Hosting); Melanie Lowry (Pro Se)

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Default Judgment
Dismissed (total)
Material Removed

Description: 

Susan and Robert Johnson, owners of Cozy Kittens Cattery, LLC, sued consumer review site ComplaintsBoard.com, its (alleged) publishers Elizabeth Arden and Michelle Reitenger, and two ComplaintsBoard users who commented on a complaint thread about Susan Johnson and her cat breeding business. The Johnsons also sued InMotion Hosting, Inc., the hosting service for the website. The complaint alleges injurious falsehood, defamation, and intentional inflication of emotional distress against all six defendants.

The complaint also includes a federal trademark infringement claim against one of the commenters, Kathleen Heineman, who allegedly violated the Johnsons' trademark rights in their "Cozy Kittens" trademark by "use of the name 'Cozy Kittens and Cuddly Cats'" in connection with her competing cat breeding business. (This allegation is puzzling given that Heineman's business appears to be called Boutique Kittens.)

The claims against Arden, Reitenger, ComplaintsBoard.com, and InMotion seek to hold them liable for publishing third-party content (Lowry and Heineman's comments) and refusing to remove this content upon demand by the Johnsons. These claims are likely barred by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, but it does not look like any defendant has asserted this defense so far.

The Johnsons originally filed suit in state court in Missouri in June 2008, but Heineman removed the case to federal court in October 2008. After removal, Heineman, a resident of Colorado, moved to dismiss the complaint against her for lack of personal jurisdiction. This motion was pending as of January 15, 2009.

Before removal, the state court entered a default judgment against Melanie Lowry, who did not appear in the case. Lowry later challenged the default judgment by sending a letter to the federal district judge.

InMotion moved to dismiss the complaint in state court (grounds unknown), but did not refile the motion in federal court after removal. Based on InMotion's failure to answer or file a motion to dismiss in federal court, the Johnsons moved for entry of a default judgment against it. InMotion then appeared, arguing that the court should deny the Johnsons' motion for entry of default and hear its motion to dismiss on the merits.

Arden, Reitenger, and ComplaintsBoard.com have not appeared in the federal action. The reason for this is not clear -- they may have defaulted in the state court action, they may have settled with the Johnsons, or they may never have been served in the first place. The disputed comments no longer appear on ComplaintsBoard.com.

UPDATE:  

6/8/2009 - Court granted the Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Heineman, Lowry, and InMotion Hosting 

7/10/2009 - Court dismissed without prejudice the claims against Defendants Elizabeth Arden d/b/a ComplaintsBoard.com, ComplaintsBoard.com, and Michelle Reitenger 

8/4/2010 - 8th Circuit affirms dismissal of claims 

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Updated 2/12/09 - VAF

One Yelp Review Case Settles as a Second Gets Underway in California

We may be seeing the start of a trend in California, as one lawsuit regarding a review posted on the website Yelp.com settled last week just as a second case got underway.

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

Anonymous Gripe Site Wins Legal Battle With Ohio Homebuilder Powermark Homes

Last month, an anonymous website dedicated to criticizing Ohio homebuilder Powermark Homes succeeded in maintaining its anonymity in the face of a lawsuit brought by the company and two of its principals, Mark and Lisa Powers, who had sued the anonymous operator of Powermark Homes Alert.  At the time of the suit, the homepage for the site included a picture of Mark and Lisa and the statements "The Truth Exposed" and "Do you really want to do business with this Ohio Home Builder?"

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

Nam Tai v. Yahoo! Inc.

Date: 

02/01/2001

Threat Type: 

Subpoena

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Yahoo! Inc.

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Large Organization
Intermediary

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Subpoena Enforced

Description: 

Nam Tai Electronics, Inc., a Hong Kong-based electronics company, subpoenaed Yahoo! Inc. in connection with a lawsuit against 51 "John Doe" defendants alleging libel, trade libel, and violations of California's unfair business practices statute.  The lawsuit revolved around negative comments about Nam Tai posted to a Yahoo! message board pertaining to Nam Tai. After filing the complaint, Nam Tai obtained a subpoena in California directing Yahoo! to disclose its subscriber data (IP address) for "scovey2," one of the anonymous forum posters.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Priority: 

1-High

Nam Tai v. AOL

Date: 

03/19/2001

Threat Type: 

Subpoena

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

America Online, Inc.

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Large Organization
Intermediary

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Circuit Court of Loudon County, Virginia; Virginia Supreme Court

Case Number: 

No. 012761 (Va. Sup. Ct.)

Legal Counsel: 

Laura A. Heymann - AOL; Patrick J. Carome, Samir Jain - Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Subpoena Enforced

Description: 

Nam Tai Electronics, Inc., a Hong Kong-based electronics company, subpoenaed AOL in connection with a lawsuit against 51 "John Doe" defendants alleging libel, trade libel, and violations of California's unfair business practices statute.  The lawsuit revolved around negative comments about Nam Tai posted to a Yahoo! message board pertaining to Nam Tai. 

After filing the complaint, Nam Tai obtained a subpoena in California directing Yahoo! to disclose its subscriber data (IP address) for "scovey2," one of the anonymous forum posters.  Based on this information, Nam Tai determined that "scovey2" obtained his Internet access through AOL.   Nam Tai then obtained a "commission" for out-of-state discovery from the California court to depose AOL's custodian of records in Virginia, in order to seek identifying information for "scovey2."  Nam Tai asked a Virginia state trial court to issue a subpoena, and AOL moved to quash the subpoena. 

The trial court denied AOL's motion to quash, concluding that it would enforce the California "commission" and reasoning that First Amendment concerns implicated by the libel and trade libel claims were not implicated by the California unfair business practices claim.  The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed, relying heavily on the principle of "comity" (that is, the respect states extend to the judgments of other states).  

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Priority: 

1-High

Wong v. Tai Jing

Date: 

12/11/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Tai Jing; Jia Ma; Yelp! Inc.

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization
Intermediary

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Superior Court for the State of California, Santa Clara County

Case Number: 

1-08-CV-129971

Legal Counsel: 

Mark A. Goldowitz - California Anti-SLAPP Project (for Tai Jing and Jia Ma)

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Dismissed (partial)
Withdrawn

Description: 

Yvonne Wong, a pediatric dentist from Foster City, CA sued Tai Jing and Jia Ma, the parents of a boy she treated, after they allegedly posted a negative review about her on Yelp!, a consumer review website.  Wong also named Yelp! Inc. as a defendant. The complaint contained three causes of action: first, a claim of libel against all three defendants; second, a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against Jing and Ma; and third, a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress against Jing and Yelp!  Wong's attorney subsequently told the San Francisco Chronicle that he would dismiss the claims against Yelp because section 230 of the Communications Decency Act bars recovery against the website for publishing third-party content.

Update:

01/21/2009 - Tai Jing, Jia Ma, and Yelp! Inc. filed a special motion to strike the complaint under California's anti-SLAPP law (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16).

02/03/2009 - Wong voluntarily dismissed the claims against Yelp!

03/18/2009 - The court denied Tai Jing and Jia Ma's motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP law.

7/15/2009 -  Defendants filed their opening brief in the Sixth Appellate District.  Plaintiff responded on 9/14/2009 and Defendants filed their reply on 10/9/2009. 

11/9/2010 - The Sixth Appellate District issued a ruling dismissing all claims against Jia Ma and Yelp!, and both emotional distress claims against Tai Jing, under California's Anti-SLAPP statute.  The Court left intact the claim against Jing for libel.

05/12/2011 - On remand, the Superior Court awarded Jia Ma, Tai Jing, and Yelp! a total of $80,741.15 in legal fees for the claims dismissed under California's Anti-SLAPP statute. Yvonne Wong's libel claim against Tai Jing (as sole author of the Yelp! review) remains pending. 

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

JS Editing

Anonymity of 'Skanks in NYC' Blogger Could Hinge On Fact-Opinion Divide

Since the story broke in the New York Daily News on Tuesday, there has been a deluge of articles and posts (for example here, here, here,

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

Cohen v. Google (Blogger)

Date: 

01/02/2009

Threat Type: 

Subpoena

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Google, Inc. (parent of Blogger.com)

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Large Organization
Intermediary

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York

Case Number: 

100012/2009

Legal Counsel: 

Gregory P. Vidler, Debra J. Guzov, Matthew A. Pek, Anne W. Salisbury - Guzov Ofsink, LLC (for the anonymous blogger)

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Material Removed
Subpoena Enforced

Description: 

In January 2009, Fashion model Liskula Cohen petitioned a New York state court for "pre-action" discovery from Google Inc. (on behalf of its subsidiary Blogger.com), seeking the identity of the anonymous operator of the Skanks in NYC blog.  The blog consists of only 5 posts, all posted on the same day in August 2008, and all making derogatory comments about Cohen.  According to court documents, Cohen alleges that the blog entries, including photographs, captions to photographs, and commentary describe her as a "skank" and a "ho," and otherwise depict her as sexually promiscuous, dishonest, and unclean.  She claims that these postings are libelous per se because they impugn her chastity and negatively reflect on her qualifications as a model.

On January 5, the court issued an "order to show cause," which required Google to appear before the court on January 26 for argument about whether disclosure of the blogger's identity should be ordered. 

Update:

1/26/09 - At a hearing, the court ordered Google to notify the anonymous blogger of the pending discovery request.

2/18/09 - Through counsel, the anonymous blogger filed a brief in opposition to Cohen's application for pre-action discovery. 

03/20/09 - The blog went offline sometime in March. The parties reportedly dispute what that means for the case.

8/17/09 - The court granted Cohen's petition, ruling that the statements on the blog were reasonably susceptible of defamatory meaning.

8/21/09 - Press reports indicate that the anonymous blogger's name is Rosemary Port.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

Google Blogs

Oxford Round Table, Inc. v. Mahone

Date: 

06/25/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Sloan Mahone

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky

Case Number: 

3:07CV-330-H

Legal Counsel: 

Charles W. Chapman; Rodger W. Lofton

Publication Medium: 

Email
Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Description: 

Oxford Round Table, Inc. ("ORT"), a Kentucky corporation that conducts educational conferences at various colleges within Oxford University, sued Oxford lecturer Sloan Mahone for defamation and tortious interference in federal court in Kentucky.  ORT claimed that Mahone posted defamatory statements on a forum on The Chronicle of Higher Education website.  According to court documents, in these postings Mahone criticized ORT's business operations, calling it a "scam" and a "misrepresentation."  Also, Mahone allegedly sent critical emails to a colleague at Oxford and a prospective participant in one of ORT's conferences. 

After ORT filed suit, Mahone moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The court granted the motion, finding that Mahone lacked the requisite minimum contacts with the State of Kentucky.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

User Submission Form

DiAdamo v. Duggan

Date: 

09/29/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Thomas J. Duggan, Jr.; Valley Patriot, Inc.; Merrimack Valley Radio, LLC; John Doe 1-2

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Media Company

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Superior Court of Massachusetts, Essex

Case Number: 

08-1931D

Legal Counsel: 

Peter Caruso

Publication Medium: 

Blog
Broadcast
Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

Thomas Duggan, who who hosts the "Paying Attention!" radio program on WCAP 980AM in Lowell Massachusetts, was sued by William DiAdamo, a local attorney, over statements Duggan made on his radio program and republished on his blog, Paying Attention! With Tom Duggan, and the website for The Valley Patriot, a monthly newspaper in North Andover Massachusetts.

According to plaintiff's complaint, on August 23, 2008, Duggan broadcast a segment about DiAdamo in which he falsely stated that DiAdamo was, among other things,  "being accused of throwing [a legal] case and has been fired by the City of Lawrence because he is being accused of throwing the case."

On November 24, 2008, Duggan served a special motion to dismiss under the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP law.  Plaintiff served his opposition to the motion on December 5.

Update:

1/12/09 -  Hearing on all motions, including anti-SLAPP, SLAPP-back, Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, and Motion to Authorize Release of Attorney-Client Privilege, are all scheduled for Monday, January 12, 2009, at 2:00 PM at Lawrence Superior Court.

2/23/09 - Court denied Duggan's special motion to dismiss the lawsuit under the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP law and granted DiAdamo's motion to dismiss Duggan's counterclaim.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

User Feedback

CMLP Notes: 

via Peter Caruso

status checked 6/17/09; no new info - CMF

Priority: 

1-High

State of Utah v. Ian Lake

Date: 

05/18/2000

Threat Type: 

Criminal Charge

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Ian Lake

Type of Party: 

Government

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Fifth District Juvenile Court, Beaver County, State of Utah

Case Number: 

No. 20010159 (Utah Supreme Ct.)

Legal Counsel: 

Stephen C. Clark, Janelle P. Eurick, Richard A. Van Wagoner, Robert J. Shelby

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Description: 

In May 2000, Beaver County Utah deputies seized Ian Lake’s computer and arrested the 16-year-old Milford High School student.  Lake was charged with one count of criminal libel in violation of Utah Code section 76-9-502 and one count of criminal slander for imputing unchastity to a female in violation of Utah Code section 76-9-507 after posting derogatory comments on a website that he created at home. Lake referred to several students’ sexual history and also accused his high school principal of being the “town drunk” and having an affair with the school secretary, according to filings in the case.

Utah's criminal libel statute states that "a person is guilty of libel if he intentionally and with a malicious intent to injure another publishes or procures to be published any libel." The crime, a misdemeanor, carries a penalty of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.  Lake spent seven days in a juvenile detention facility. The state later dropped the slander charge but continued to pursue a libel conviction.   

On July 31, 2001, the ACLU of Utah filed a motion to dismiss Lake’s criminal charges on the ground that Utah’s criminal libel statute is unconstitutional on its face.

On January 23, 2001, Fifth District Juvenile Court Judge Joseph E. Jackson denied the motion to dismiss, but acknowledged that it “raises serious and substantial questions about the facial validity of Utah’s criminal libel statute, that there is some merit for the position that the statute is unconstitutional, and that there is no just reason for delay in certifying the court’s denial of the Motion to Dismiss for immediate appeal.”  He referred the case to the Utah Supreme Court.  

On November 15, 2002, the Utah Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state’s criminal libel law was unconstitutional.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

Court Filings

Pages