Samantha Ronson, a prominent DJ and friend of movie star Lindsey Lohan, sued popular celebrity blogger Mario Lavandeira (aka Perez Hilton) and others for libel in California state court in June 2007.

According to Ronson's complaint, the online magazine "Celebrity Babylon" published statements in late May 2007 accusing Ronson of of planting drugs in Lohan's car and "setting up" Lohan for press photographers in exchange for money. On June 1, Lavandeira allegedly republished these statements on his blog, adding that Ronson had been "toxic" for Lohan. Additionally, on June 13, 2007, Lavandeira allegedly published a posting under the headline "Blame Samantha!," which stated: "Was Lindsay Lohan betrayed by her lezbot DJ pal Samantha Ronson? Australia's NW magazine seems to think so. And we wouldn't disagree!"

In addition to Lavandeira, Ronson sued the Sunset Photo and News agency, which operates Celebrity Babylon, and Jill Ishkanian, its editor-in-chief. The complaint asked for $20 million in damages.

On September 4, 2007, Lavandeira filed a motion to strike the complaint pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16). On November 1, 2007, the court ruled on the motion to strike, granting it in full. The court held that Lavandeira's website was a "public forum" and that his posts about Ronson concerned a "matter of public interest" because Ronson had injected herself into the public eye by associating with Lohan and because of the role illegal drugs played in the story. The court further held that Ronson had failed to produce sufficient evidence to meet the burden imposed by the anti-SLAPP statute. Specifically, the court ruled that Ronson was "at least" a limited purpose public figure under the circumstances, and that she had failed to bring forward any evidence that Lavandeira had acted with malice or reckless disregard for the truth of the statements. At the end of the hearing, Lavandeira's lawyer indicated that he would be submitting a motion for attorneys fees.

We have another document, entitled "Stipulation for the Entry of an Order Granting Motion to Strike Complaint Brought By Defendant Mario Lavandeira and Striking and Dismissing Complaint as to Lavandeira; [Proposed] Order Thereon." It is dated October 31, 2007, and appears to be a stipulation between the parties, whereby Ronson would agree to the entry of an order by the court granting the motion to strike and dismissing the complaint and Lavandeira would agree to waive his right to recover attorneys fees under section 425.16. Only one signature appears on the document - Ronson's -- and we have not been able to confirm whether this document was ever fully executed and filed with the court. Given the contents of the November 1 hearing transcript, however, it seems unlikely that it was.

Ronson and Ishkanian previously settled for an undisclosed amount in October 2007.

Update: In early December 2007, Lavandeira filed a motion seeking $93,000 in attorneys' fees from Ronson pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute.

1/23/08 - News reports indicate that the court awarded Lavandeira approximately $85,000 in attorneys fees under the anti-SLAPP statute.

5/5/08 - News reports indicate that Ronson is trying to get her lawsuit reinstated, arguing that her original lawyer did not zealously defend her interests because of a fee dispute. Lavandeira has filed papers in opposition.

6/4/08 - News reports indicate that the court has rejected Ronson's attempt to re-open the case.

12/10/08 -  The Los Angeles Times is reporting that Ronson has sued her former attorney, Martin Garbus, for malpractice over his handling of her case.

Lee Kaplan, a freelance journalist and columnist for FrontPageMag.com, sued Yaman Salahi, a student blogger at the University of California at Berkeley, in small claims court for libel and interfering with business relations.

Salahi's blog, Lee Kaplan Watch, monitored and commented critically on Kaplan's pro-Israel articles and activities. Kaplan claimed that Salahi made false statements about him, including that Kaplan "represents the very worst of journalistic integrity and honesty, violating ethical norms by impersonating others and writing fabricated biographies of various persons involved in campus activism." Kaplan also claimd that Salahi sent letters and emails to Kaplan's potential employers.

Kaplan won in small claims court, and the judgment was affirmed on appeal. Salahi was ordered to pay Kaplan $7,500 in damages. The court did not release an opinion regarding its decision.

Shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing, an unknown person posted messages on an AOL bulletin board purporting to offer for sale t-shirts and other items which supported or made light of the bombing in Oklahoma City. The messages contained Kenneth Zeran’s first name and phone number.

After Zeran received outraged calls and death threats, he complained to AOL, which removed the postings but did not post a retraction. Similar messages continued to appear on AOL for several weeks despite Zeran’s request that AOL block such messages.

Zeran originally filed negligence and defamation claims in Oklahoma, claiming that AOL was responsible for the postings. AOL moved to have the suit transferred to Virginia, where it was decided.

On March 27, 2007, the district court granted AOL's motion to dismiss. See Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 958 F.Supp. 1124 (E.D. Va. 1997).

On November 12, 1997, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision on appeal. See Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 328 (4th Cir. 1997). The Court of Appeals based its ruling on Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, which states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

The Court of Appeals also rejected Zeran's argument that Section 230 should not apply in this case because the messages at issue had been posted before the statute was enacted.

After their son was expelled from the Hargrave Military Academy for stealing, Jerry and Melissa Guyles wrote a letter to other parents of Hargrave students, discussing their son's expulsion and their interactions with the administration, and expressing their view that the director of the School, Wheeler Baker, was lacking in leadership qualities. They subsequently set up a website called "HargraveHasProblems.com," on which they posted a copy of the letter and stories from other parents.

Baker and the school sued for defamation, interference with contract, and other torts under Virginia and North Carolina law. They sought, and the court granted (without notice or a hearing), an extraordinarily broad temporary restraining order barring the Guyles from contacting parents or operating the website. The plaintiffs then moved for sanctions against the Guyles for violating the terms of the temporary restraining order and to convert the temporary restraining order into a preliminary injunction.

The Guyles appeared in the action through counsel, and the ACLU filed an amicus curiae brief on their behalf, arguing that the temporary restraining order was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech in violation of the First Amendment.

The parties eventually settled the dispute in a court mediation session. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed to the public. The court never ruled on the First Amendment question.

Benjamin Schreiber and Ryan Todd, two 16-year old Clark High School students, posted a false MySpace page about their assistant principal Anna Draker in March 2006. The page was online for approximately one month before Draker learned of it. She contacted MySpace, and the social networking site took the page down at her request.

Draker sued the students and their parents in Texas state court, alleging that the page contained defamatory text and pictures and falsely depicted Draker as a lesbian, which she is not. Draker alleged that the students' parents negligently failed to supervise their children's use of the internet.  Later, she amended her complaint to include a claim for intentional infliction of emotion distress.

The students moved for summary judgment, asserting that because the "exaggerated and derogatory statements" included on the MySpace website were not assertions of fact that could be objectively verified, they were not defamatory as a matter of law.  The court agreed and dismissed the defamation claim against the students.  The students and parents then filed a motion for summary judgment on the negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. The court also granted this motion and dismissed the remainder of Draker's claims. 

Draker appealed the dismissal of her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.  The Texas appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling on August 13, 2008, holding that Draker's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim failed because it was duplicative of her defamation claim.

One of the students was also charged criminally, as a juvenile, with retaliation and fraudulent use of identifying information. (For more information, please see the CMLP's database entry on the related Texas v. Schreiber criminal matter).

An anonymous blogger made critical statements about Gwen Shamblin, leader of the Remnant Fellowship church, and about the group's beliefs and practices. One of the statements implied that two Remnant Fellowship members who were indicted for beating their eight-year old son to death had relied on advice from "Remnant leadership." Other statements detailed the prices paid by Shamblin for properties she owned. The anonymous blogger also allegedly posted photographs of the children of Remnant Fellowship members, family photos, names and ages of children, and members' home addresses.

Sixty-seven members of the group, including Shamblin, filed a lawsuit against the anonymous blogger in Tennessee state court, claiming defamation and false light invasion of privacy. The plaintiffs also named Reverend Rafael Martinez, who runs a website dedicated to warning the public about cults, in the complaint. Martinez maintains that he had no connection whatsoever to the anonymous blogger. The complaint alleges that Martinez defamed the plaintiffs by making statements that the church's practices were "dangerous and destructive" and indicating that church doctrine advocated "extreme fasting" and "extreme discipline for children," including spankings and whippings.

Martinez moved to dismiss the claim against him in January 2007. The court granted his motion in April 2007, but granted the plaintiffs permission to amend the complaint. Rather than amending, the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew the lawsuit.

Two female Yale Law School students, captioned as Does I & II, sued Anthony Ciolli, the former chief education director of the popular law school admissions forum, AutoAdmit, and a host of pseudonymous users of the forum over vulgar, sexually explicit, and threatening comments posted about them on the forum. In addition to making numerous derogatory and sexually explicit statements about the two students, pseudonymous users of the site created another website, t14talent: The Most Appealing Women @ Top Law Schools (now defunct), and posted photographs of one of the students without her permission. (Although the complaint is not entirely clear on this point, the student claims copyright ownership in these photographs in addition to publicity rights, indicating that she may have been the creator of the photos and posted them online.)

According to the complaint, the two students complained about the forum postings to the AutoAdmit staff, but AutoAdmit did not remove the material. Ciolli disputes that he had any authority to remove the offensive postings.

In June 2007, the two students sued in federal court in Connecticut, asserting claims of defamation, copyright infringement, unauthorized appropriation of name and likeness, unreasonable publicity given to another's life, false light invasion of privacy, and other torts. Soon after filing, they moved to proceed anonymously, and the court granted that request.

In August 2007, the plaintiffs moved to modify the court's scheduling order in order to give them time to investigate the identity of the pseudonymous defendants and to amend their complaint. The court granted the initial request and two subsequent requests for thirty-day extensions, the last of which was requested on October 4. According to a tip posted on David Lat's Above the Law blog, it is unlikely that the court will grant a fourth extension, so an amended complaint may be forthcoming relatively soon.

Update:

11/8/07 - Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint dropping Ciolli from the lawsuit.

1/24/08 - Plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited discovery seeking to uncover the identities of the pseudonymous posters listed in the complaint.

1/29/08 - Court granted motion for expedited discovery.

2/22/08 - Pseudonymous defendant "AK47" moved to quash the subpoena directed at AT&T requesting information about his identity.

3/2/08 - Plaintiffs deposed former defendant Anthony Ciolli, at which Ciolli acknowledged that his AOL Instant Messenger username is "AnthonyCiolli."

3/4/08 - Former defendant Anthony Ciolli filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court against the plaintiffs, their lawyers, and other defendants for wrongful initiation of civil proceedings, abuse of process, libel, slander, false light invasion of privacy, tortious interference with contract, and unauthorized use of name or likeness.

3/18/08 - Plaintiffs issued a subpoena to AOL seeking the names of "all persons who have registered or used" the username "AnthonyCiolli" and related information about the account, including "other user names and login IDs and/or Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses associated with the IM username 'AnthonyCiolli.'"

4/7/08 - Ciolli filed a motion to quash the AOL subpoena in federal district court in Virginia.

06/13/08 - The court denied AK47's motion to quash the subpoena seeking his identity from AT&T.

08/05/08 - Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that names Mathew C. Ryan (previously known by username ":D") as a defendant. Legal Satyricon "can confirm with 100% certainty that the guy in the complaint is neither an attorney nor a law professor."

8/13/08 - Defendant "a horse walks into a bar", a.k.a Ryan Mariner filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff's have stated no cause of action against him and that they have failed to prosecute the action against him despite offers to accept service made through counsel. 

9/10/08 - Plaintiffs filed papers in opposition to Mariner's motion to dismiss.

9/19/08 - The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia held that the plaintiffs' subpoena to AOL seeking the names of "all persons who have registered or used" the username "AnthonyCiolli" was facially invalid because it was issued from the wrong court.  The court determined that it should have issued from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Because the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction, it did not reach the merits of Anthony Ciolli's motion to quash. 

10/26/08 - Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement and request for dismissal against defendant "Whamo."

3/31/09 - Pennsylvania federal court largely denied the defendants' motion to dismiss Anthony Ciolli's complaint in Ciolli v. Iravani, but gave defendants leave to renew their motion after jurisdictional discovery.  The court also struck certain allegations from the complaint relating to settlement negotiations in the Connecticut lawsuit. 

4/30/09 - Connecticut federal court denies Matthew Ryan's motion to dismiss. 

5/21/09 - Matthew Ryan files his answer to the second amended complaint in Connecticut federal court.

9/29/09 - Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement and Request for Dismissal of Action Against Defendant ":D", A.K.A. Matthew C. Ryan

10/16/09 - Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Action Against Remaining Defendants Without Prejudice by Doe 1, Doe 2

10/23/09 - Court dismissed case

Joan Melvin, a Pennsylvania Superior Court judge, sued the anonymous operator or operators of the website, "Grant Street '99," because of statements that appeared on the website accusing her of political activity and lobbying in connection with the gubernatorial appointment of another judge.

Melvin initially sued the anonymous defendant(s) for defamation in Virginia state court and sought an ex parte order requiring America Online (the website's hosting service) to disclose the identity of the webmaster. The Virginia court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, and Melvin re-filed the lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court and subpoenaed AOL for discovery of the identity of the webmaster. Through counsel, the anonymous defendant(s) moved for a protective order against discovery of their identities on grounds that the First Amendment protected the right to engage in anonymous political speech.

The trial court initially stayed discovery of the identity of the defendant(s) and allowed ordinary fact discovery to proceed in order to give the defendant(s) the opportunity to show that Melvin could not prevail in the lawsuit. The defendant(s) moved for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that Melvin could produce no evidence of economic harm. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment, finding that Melvin had brought forth evidence of falsity, defamatory meaning, and actual harm. At this point, the court denied the defendant(s)' motion for a protective order barring discovery of their identities pending a trial on all issues but malice.

The anonymous defendant(s) appealed. The Superior Court quashed the appeal, holding that the denial of a motion for a protective order was not an appealable collateral order. The anonymous defendant(s) appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which reversed the decision of the Superior Court, holding that the discovery ruling was appealable. The court remanded the case to the Superior Court "for consideration of Appellants' constitutional question, namely, whether the First Amendment requires a public official defamation plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of actual economic harm prior to obtaining discovery of an anonymous defamation defendant's identity." Melvin v. Doe, 836 A.2d 42, 50 (Pa. 2003).

Melvin voluntarily dropped the lawsuit in 2004.

Later, former Alleghany County employee John Chapman revealed that he was behind "Grant Street '99."

On February 3, 2004, the Philadelphia Daily News published an article reporting that two of State Senator Vincent Fumo's staff members had been subpoenaed as part of a federal corruption probe into the dismissals of thousands of parking tickets. The article indicated that staffer Tracy D'Alonzo was among the two aides subpoenaed. That same day, Nora Truscello re-published the Daily News article verbatim on her "gripe" site critical of Senator Fumo, www.dumpfumo.com.

The next day, the Daily News printed a retraction and reported that only one of Senator Fumo's aides had been subpoenaed (not D'Alonzo). Truscello also posted a retraction on her website.

D'Alonzo and her husband sued Truscello in Pennsylvania state court for defamation in April 2004. In February 2006, the court granted Truscello's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The court relied on CDA 230, which provides immunity for publishing the statements of others online. This case is significant because the court applied CDA 230 even though Truscello was "active" in searching out, selecting, and posting the Daily News article, whereas most CDA 230 cases apply to website operators who "passively" allow users to post comment or other content on their sites.

In December 2005, Pennsylvania Turnpike Commissioner Pasquale Deon filed a libel suit against the Town Supervisor of Middletown, Pennsylvania, Robert McMonagle, in Pennsylvania state court. Deon alleged that McMonagle published statements claiming on two websites dealing with local politics that Deon was involved in criminal and corrupt activities.

The record is unclear, but it looks like McMonagle never appeared in the lawsuit and there has been no activity in the case since April 2006. According to the Bucks County Court docket, Deon filed a similar lawsuit against McMonagle in May 2004 (case number 200402986).  Neither case had any recent activity as of June 17, 2009.