On June 17, 2008, Barry Shy, a Los Angeles real estate developer, and his development company, 5th St Loft, sued Jessica Jordan and Alan Dylan, who reside in a building developed by Shy and allegedly run the website Truedowntown, the "unofficial" site for the Shybary Grand Loft in Los Angeles.  The lawsuit claims that Jordan and Dylan libeled Shy and damaged his businesses by making disparaging comments about him.

Jordan and Dylan are both owners of units in the SB Grand, a prominent development in downtown Los Angeles.  Jordan also runs the website  Truedowntown, which she created to "inspire positive change at the Shybary Grand by identifying issues that need to be dealt with by the board and management company, especially if those issues have ignored California Law." (The suit claims that Dylan also is connected with the website, but Jordan has stated that is incorrect).

According to plaintiffs' complaint, Jordan and Dylan made the following disparaging statements about Shy:

a) Barry Shy is a criminal
b) Barry Shy is a "slum lord"
c) Barry Shy is "dishonest" and only cares about "making a profit"
d) "Do Not Buy or Rent from Barry Shy you will regret it"
e) Barry Shy has broken Federal Laws
f) Barry Shy is a horrible business man with no principals

Although the complaint does not identify where the statements appeared, Blogdowntown, a site that describes itself as a "central point for news and discussion of Downtown Los Angeles," noted that all of the statements were drawn from comments on that site's March of 2006 story about Shy's purchase of buildings in Los Angeles' historic core.  Some of these statements were posted psuedonymously, which likely explains why Shy also named "Does 1-100" as defendants in the suit.

Update:

A case management conference has been schedule for 11/04/2008 at 08:45 am in department 28 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. 

Diane Wargo sued Mario Lavandeira, also known as Perez Hilton, and 25 anonymous PerezHilton.com posters in Ohio state court after Lavandeira published an email containing homophobic slurs that Wargo sent to the blog from her work email account.

The posted version of the email included Wargo's full name, work email address, and the name of her employer. Wargo's employer fired her after it became aware of the email and received harassing emails and telephone calls. Wargo's complaint alleges that publishing her personal information violated PerezHilton.com's terms of use and privacy policy.

In the lawsuit, Wargo seeks $25 million in damages on thirteen claims, including invasion of privacy through publication of private facts, breach of contract, fraud, negligence, defamation, and both negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Wargo also seeks a preliminary injunction against Lavandeira to prevent him from publicizing her personal information on his website.

Update:

08/27/08 - Case was removed to the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio

10/03/08 - Court granted Lavandeira's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and entered judgment against Wargo.

Denise McVea, a journalist and author, sued Alamo historian James Crisp in Texas federal court for defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after Crisp criticized McVea's research and book about in forum posts on a prominent Alamo history website, www.thealamofilm.com. 

According to plaintiff's complaint, Crisp made the following allegedly defamatory statements:

• "when confronted by logical contraditions in her argument, Plaintiff simply denies them."
• "I was willing to give her research the benefit of the dbout, but ultimately unwilling to lend my support to a work which stretched both the evidence and credulity, as her book clearly does."
• "On the other hand, Dunn, after years of archival research carried out in his spare time, has now brought forth a succinct article which, using passport applications, census data, newspaper accounts, and ships' passenger lists, makes a rock-solid case that Denise's provocative and interesting theory is wrong -- just flat wrong."
• "McVea, I have discovered -- in large part thanks to this forum -- is at her nastiest when her arguments are at their weakest -- and she is plenty nasty just now."
• "The documents which Dunn has used -- documents either ignored, not found, or suppressed by Denise McVea -- are in the public domain, and available for anyone to check."
• "Please read very carefully any 'rebuttal' submitted by Ms. McVea, and check her references with equal care.  That's what I did when I found that her arguments in previous submissions -- arguments based on prodigious and ingenious archival research -- nevertheless simply did not match the documentary evidence." 

Crisp moved to dismiss McVea's claims due to the court's lack of personal jurisdiction over Crisp and McVea's failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  The court ruled that Crisp was subject to Texas's personal jurisdiction, because Crisp's "comments . . . aimed at a Texas resident and directed to a predominately Texas audience on a website devoted to Texas history" established sufficient contacts with the state.

But the court granted Crisp's motion to dismiss due to failure to state a claim.  The court ruled that given the context of the online forum and the nature of the discussion, the disputed comments could not be reasonably found to have a defamatory meaning, but rather were protected expressions of opinion.

McVea appealed the court's ruling.  On Aug. 27, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as frivolous.  The court held that "a person of ordinary intelligence would not find Crisp's words reasonably capable of defamatory meaning."

Pet shop owner Robert Novak, operator of Petswarehouse.com, sued Active Window Productions ("AWP"), host of the Aquatic Plants Digest ("APD"), a forum and email list for aquatic plant gardeners and hobbyists, and several individuals who criticized Pets Warehouse.  Novak added further claims against the individuals after they organized to protest Novak's lawsuit.  Novak sued in New York federal court on claims of cybersquatting, defamation, trademark dilution and infringement, trade libel, tortious interference with business, false light, unfair competition, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

According to court documents, Dan Resler, a computer scientist, posted a message in May 2001 that warned: "Thinking of buying plants from Pet Warehouse? Don't." He went on to detail his gripes about the company's customer service, based on what he said was a delayed shipment of plants he'd ordered.  Resler later followed up with this post amending his previous warning: "to clarify: Pet Warehouse OK, Pets Warehouse NOT." 

Other members of the list soon added their own complaints, including the following alleged statements recounted in the plaintiff's complaint:

• [a]s a source for purchasing plants, they do not have a good reputation (Defendant Jared Weinberger - May 21, 2001)
• But you don’t have to take my word as the last word on their horrible service. Feeling lucky? Go ahead - try them out yourselves. After all, it’s only your time and money, right? (Defendant Dan Resler - May 18, 2001)
• They claim to fill 90% of the orders. Well I can tell everyone it’s more like 20%. Or less. If at all. (Defendant Thomas Barr - May 17, 2001)
• Given the continual flow of negative comments about PetSwarehouse that I’ve read for nearly two years on this list, I’ve decided to add a warning (and figure this is better than simply removing them. (Defendant Weinberger - May 18, 2001)
• Remember petSWEARhouse, buy their plants and you’ll be swearing! (May 22, 2001)
• I believe they call that deceptive advertising. Or bait-and-switch. Take your pick. (Defendant Sean Carney - May 16, 2001)

After seeing the criticism, Novak filed suit against the posters for libel and defamation seeking damages of $1 million, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress seeking damages of $15 million.

The defendants began to organize against the lawsuit via online forums and the APD list, and sought donations to their legal defense fund.  In organizing and promoting their legal defense, the defendants referenced Pets Warehouse.  In response, Novak brought additional claims against the defendants, including trademark violations and business torts. 

As a result, several defendants settled with Novak in December 2001 and agreed to remove any posts or messages "concerning or referring to" Novak. According to the "stipulation of settlement" posted on the defendants' information site, Dan Resler also agreed to pay $4,150.

In 2007, Novak amended his complaint against AWP, AWP's editor Mark Rosenstein, and AWP poster Robert Hudson. AWP and  Mark Rosenstein answered, denying Novak's claims and invoking section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as granting them immunity from any defamation or infringement stemming from APD posters' comments. They also brought counterclaims against Novak for violations of New York Civil Rights Law.

Update:

8/7/2008 - Court ordered that a status conference will be held in Courtroom 820 of the Federal Courthouse in Central Islip on September 5, 2008 at 11:30 a.m 

9/19/2008 - Status conference held. Court ordered a pretrial conference for May 29, 2009.

Deep Blue Marine, its CEO Wilf Blum, and Alexander Lindale LLC sued former Deep Blue operations manager Edward Krajewski after Krajewski criticized the plaintiffs and allegedly disclosed Deep Blue proprietary information on several online investor forums. The plaintiffs sought an injunction in Utah federal court against Krajewski to prevent him from posting any further criticism or materials. They also brought claims for defamation, false light, intentional interference with economic advantage, breach of contract (including publication of trade secrets), and breach of convenant of good faith.

In May 2008, Deep Blue moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Krajewski. The court decided the motion ex parte after satisfying itself that Krajewski had received notice of the hearing. It granted the motion, issuing an order prohibiting Krajewski from

In July 2008, Krajewski, acting pro se, filed a motion for an extension of time to file a brief. He also submitted an affidavit explaining that he lacked sufficient financial resources to litigate the case in Utah and requesting that the court transfer the case to Pennsylvania, his home state. On July 22, the court denied the motion for an extension of time to file a brief, noting that Krajewski did not identify what motion he would be addressing and that no motions were currently pending. The court added that Krajewski could inititiate a motion and file a brief in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules.

Update:

1/15/2009 - Action dismissed without prejudice subject to parties' settlement agreement  

Roslyn Johnson, former Deputy Director of the D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation, sued Jonetta Rose Barras, Talk Media Communications, government watchdog website DCWatch, two DCWatch executives, and The District of Columbia, after DC Watch published in its electronic newsletter and on its website articles submitted by Barras, a local political reporter. Barras's articles, which were posted also on her personal website JR Barras.com, looked at alleged cronymism in the hiring practices of the Department and stated that Johnson had inflated her resume in order to secure her position. See Cmplt. ¶¶ 70-75 . Johnson filed her claims for defamation, false light, intentional interference with contract, negligence, and violations of the District of Columbia's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in D.C. Superior Court.

DCWatch and its two executives, Dorothy Brizill and Gary Imhoff, moved to dismiss Johnson's claims against them, arguing that DCWatch could not be found liable for Barras's article because DCWatch was protected from liability for publishing third-party content under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230). They also argued that they could only be held liable if Barras' accusations were not substantially true and cited a report by the D.C. Inspector General that found Johnson had inflated her resume.

In addition, Barras moved for judgment on the pleadings on grounds that her accusations were substantially true, and the District of Columbia moved to dismiss the claims against it, arguing that the D.C. FOIA did not create a claim on which Johnson could sue.

The court denied DCWatch's motion initially and granted Johnson limited discovery to ascertain whether Barras was an agent of DCWatch, which would allow Johnson to overcome DCWatch's CDA 230 immunity. The court also denied Barras's and the District's motions, ruling that it would let Johnson investigate her claims in discovery.

Johnson failed to uncover evidence of a relationship between DCWatch and Barras that would sustain her claims against the DCWatch defendants, and she voluntarily withdrew her claims against them in February 2008.

Update:

01/29/09 - Case dismissed with prejudice as to Barras and Talk Media Communications; remaining claims settled.