Defamation

Hammitt v. Busbin

Date: 

12/28/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Ken Busbin; Teresa Watson; RomeNewsByWatson.Com, Inc.

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal
State

Court Name: 

The Superior Court of Chattooga County, State of Georgia; United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

Case Number: 

2007CA33153 (state court); 4:2008cv00162 (federal court)

Legal Counsel: 

W. Benjamin Ballenger - Office of W. Benjamin Ballenger (for Busbin); David F. Guldenschuh - David F. Guldenschuh, P.C.; Lyle Vincent Anderson - Office of Lyle Vincent Anderson (for Watson and RomeNewsByWatson.Com, Inc.)

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Material Removed

Description: 

On December 28, 2007, Ed and Brenda Hammitt filed a defamation lawsuit in the Superior Court  of Chattooga County, Georgia against Ken Busbin, Teresa Watson, operator of RomeNewsByWatson.com, and RomeNewsByWatson.com, Inc.  The Hammits alleged that Busbin pseudonymously posted a comment on RomeNewsByWatson.com accusing them of conspiring to grow and sell marijuana. 

Watson and RomeNewsByWatson moved to dismiss the complaint based on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230).  Before the court ruled on the motion, all of the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern  District of Georgia, claiming that the federal court had jurisdiction because of the federal law issue in the case.  The Hammits moved to remand the case to state court.  The federal court granted the motion to remand, holding that it could not exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over the case based merely on the defendants' claimed defense under CDA 230.

Currently, the case is pending in Chattooga County Superior Court.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

RSS

CMLP Notes: 

AVM 6/17/09 UPDATE: I could not find any of the documents from the remanded action in Chattooga court. But the case was ongoing as of 1/13/09 (see pretrial list, page 3). Nothing on westlaw

Priority: 

1-High

IGIA, Inc. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC

Date: 

01/11/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Xcentric Ventures, LLC; Edward Magedson

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Case Number: 

1:07-cv-00222

Legal Counsel: 

Maria Crimi Speth - Jaburg & Wilk P.C.

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Default Judgment
Withdrawn

Description: 

IGIA, Inc., a company that sells vacuum cleaners and other houseware products, sued Xcentric Ventures, LLC and Ed Magedson in federal court in New York over negative user reports published on the Ripoff Report, a consumer complaint website.  IGIA claimed that the reports constitued trade libel and unfair competition, and that Xcentric and Magedson engaged in extortion by operating the "Corporate Advocacy Program" (CAPS), in which companies accused of bad practices on the website can pay to have Xcentric verify published complaints and resolve disputes with consumers. 

IGIA filed suit after numerous negative reports about it appeared on the Ripoff Report website.  The complaint alleged that Xcentric and Magedson solicited negative reports and created fictional complaints and defamatory headings and titles, thereby losing the protection of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230).  It also claimed that operation of the CAPS program constituted extortion and wire fraud and violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Xcentric and Magedson failed to answer the complaint.  As a result, the court entered a default judgment in favor of IGIA.  Xcentric then moved to vacate the default judgment.  Subsequently, IGIA voluntarily dismissed the action.  It is not clear from the record whether this voluntary dismissal was the result of a settlement between the parties.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

Blog Post

Priority: 

1-High

EDF Ventures v. Doe

Date: 

07/24/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

John Doe

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara

Case Number: 

1-08-CV-118136

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

In July 2008,  Michigan venture capital firm EDF Ventures sued an anonymous commenter to The Funded, a website that enables entrepreneurs to rate venture capitalists anonymously.  The lawsuit, which alleges defamation, revolves around a post warning readers to avoid EDF Ventures "unless you are desperate."

In August 2008, EDF Ventures subpoenaed Adeo Ressi, operator of The Funded, seeking the identity of the anonymous poster. Ressi complied with the subpoena, but indicated that the records in his possession "showed nothing material about the identity" of the anonymous poster.  This is likely because The Funded has adopted affirmative measures to protect the anonymity of site users.

The disputed comment is still online.   

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

Blog Post

CMLP Notes: 

avm 6/12 - no new info on docket

Priority: 

1-High

Internet Solutions v. Garga-Richardson (2nd Lawsuit)

Date: 

07/10/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Archie Garga-Richardson; Does 1-25

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County

Case Number: 

BC394102

Legal Counsel: 

Archie Garga-Richardson (Pro Se); John H. Weston; G. Randall Garrou; Marc J. Randazza (on appeal)

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Description: 

After voluntarily dismissing a nearly identical lawsuit in federal court in Florida, Internet Solutions filed a complaint against Archie Garga-Richardson in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging defamation, interference with business relationships, trade libel, and unfair competition under California law. Garga-Richardson moved to strike the complaint under the California anti-SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16).

Update:

11/24/08 - The court issued a tentative ruling granting Garga-Richardson's motion to strike the complaint.

12/4/08 - Case dismissed.

1/2/09 - Internet Solutions filed a notice of appeal.

2/11/09 - Internet Solutions abandoned its appeal.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Updated 1/22/09 - VAF

Maryland High Court Hears Argument on Internet Anonymity

On Monday, the Maryland Court of Appeals heard oral argument in a case requiring it to decide what showing an aggrieved plaintiff must make before a court will order a website operator to reveal the identity of an anonymous commenter.  Paul Levy of Public Citizen argued the case for Independent Newspapers

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

Brodie v. Independent Newspapers, Inc. (Subpoena)

Date: 

08/01/2006

Threat Type: 

Subpoena

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Independent Newspapers, Inc.

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Intermediary
Media Company

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County, Maryland; Court of Appeals of Maryland

Case Number: 

17C06011665 (Circuit Court); No. 63 (Court of Appeals)

Legal Counsel: 

Bruce W. Sanford - Baker & Hostetler, LLP; Paul Alan Levy - Public Citizen

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Material Removed
Subpoena Quashed

Description: 

Real estate developer and business owner Zebulon Brodie subpoenaed Independent Newspapers, Inc. ("INI") seeking the identity of three anonymous commenters to a community forum hosted by INI.  The subpoena issued in connection with a defamation lawsuit Brodie filed against INI and John Doe defendants in Maryland state court. 

According to a brief filed on appeal, the lawsuit revolves around statements criticizing Brodie for selling his historic, pre-Civil War home to another developer (the home subsequently burned down) and accusing him of maintaining a dirty Dunkin' Donuts establishment and letting trash "waft" into a nearby waterway.  Appellant's Brief, at 4-6.  INI removed the disputed comments after Brodie complained to it, but Brodie sued nonetheless.

INI moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) immunized it from liability for comments posted by third parties.  At the same time, Brodie served a subpoena demanding that INI identify the Doe defendants "CorsicaRiver," "chatdusoleil," and "Born &amp Raised Here."  INI moved to quash the subpoena and for a protective order, arguing that Brodie had failed to make the legal and evidentiary showing necessary to overcome First Amendment protection for anonymous speech.  The trial court dismissed the lawsuit against INI based on CDA 230, but ordered INI to provide identifying information for the anonymous commenters.

INI filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court granted.  On reconsideration, the court determined that the statements about the sale and burning of Brodie's home were not defamatory statements "of and concerning" Brodie, and thus could not support a claim for defamation or a subpoena seeking the identity of those posters.  The court determined, however, that the statements relating to his Dunkin' Donuts establishment could support a claim for defamation, and it ordered the unmasking of the individuals who made those statements. 

INI then requested the specific allegations of defamation related to the food-service establishment, and Brodie's counsel responded with a letter and a copy of the relevant forum threads indicating that the posters responsible for the statements about the Dunkin' Donuts were "RockyRacoon MD" and "Suze," who were not named as defendants in the complaint.  Brodie served a new subpoena seeking to identify these two posters as well as "CorsicaRiver," "chatdusoleil," and "Born &amp Raised Here," who had been protected by the court's earlier decision on reconsideration because their statements only related to the burning of the house.  INI moved to quash this second subpoena, but the court denied the motion and ordered INI to comply.  

INI appealed.  The Maryland Court of Appeals heard oral argument in the case on December 8, 2008.

Update:

2/27/2009: The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the district court and quashed the subpoena.  It held that disclosure of the posters' identities would be improper because Brodie did not have a valid cause of action for defamation against any of them.  Specifically, the court held that Brodie could not obtain the identities of "CorsicaRiver," "chatdusoleil," and "Born &amp Raised Here" because the trial court had already ruled that their statements were not "of and concerning" him.  The court held that Brodie had no valid cause of action against "RockyRacoonMD" and "Suze" because the statute of limitations barred his any claim he might have had against them -- he had not named them in his original complaint nor timely moved to amend his complaint to include them. 

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

Public Citizen

Brodie v. Independent Newspapers, Inc. (Lawsuit)

Date: 

05/26/2006

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Independent Newspapers, Inc.; "CorsicaRiver"; "Born &amp Raised Here"; "chatdusoleil"

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Intermediary
Media Company

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County, Maryland; Court of Appeals of Maryland

Case Number: 

17C06011665 (Circuit Court); No. 63 (Court of Appeals)

Legal Counsel: 

Bruce W. Sanford - Baker & Hostetler, LLP; Paul Alan Levy - Public Citizen

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Dismissed (partial)
Material Removed

Description: 

Real estate developer and business owner Zebulon Brodie sued Independent Newspapers, Inc. ("INI") and three anonymous commenters to a community forum hosted by INI for defamation and conspiracy. According to a brief filed on appeal, the lawsuit revolves around statements criticizing Brodie for selling his historic, pre-Civil War home to another developer (the home subsequently burned down) and accusing him of maintaining a dirty Dunkin' Donuts establishment and letting trash "waft" into a nearby waterway. Appellant's Brief, at 4-6. INI removed the disputed comments after Brodie complained to it, but Brodie sued nonetheless.

INI moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) immunized it from liability for comments posted by third parties. At the same time, Brodie served a subpoena demanding that INI identify the Doe defendants "CorsicaRiver," "chatdusoleil," and "Born &amp Raised Here." INI moved to quash the subpoena and for a protective order, arguing that Brodie had failed to make the legal and evidentiary showing necessary to overcome First Amendment protection for anonymous speech. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit against INI based on CDA 230, but ordered INI to provide identifying information for the anonymous commenters.

INI filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court granted. On reconsideration, the court determined that the statements about the sale and burning of Brodie's home were not defamatory statements "of and concerning" Brodie, and thus could not support a claim for defamation or a subpoena seeking the identity of those posters. The court determined, however, that the statements relating to his Dunkin' Donuts establishment could support a claim for defamation, and it ordered the unmasking of the individuals who made those statements.

Subsequent proceedings revealed that two anonymous posters not named in the complaint or previous subpoena -- “RockyRacoonMD” and “Suze” -- were responsible for the comments about the Dunkin' Donuts establishment. Brodie served a new subpoena seeking to identify these two posters as well as the three others whose identity had been protected by the court's early opinion on reconsideration. INI moved to quash this second subpoena, but the court denied the motion and ordered INI to comply.  INI appealed.

Update:

2/27/2009: The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the district court and quashed the subpoena.  It held that disclosure of the posters' identities would be improper because Brodie did not have a valid cause of action for defamation against any of them.  Specifically, the court held that Brodie could not obtain the identities of "CorsicaRiver," "chatdusoleil," and "Born &amp Raised Here" because the trial court had already ruled that their statements were not "of and concerning" him.  The court held that Brodie had no valid cause of action against "RockyRacoonMD" and "Suze" because the statute of limitations barred his any claim he might have had against them -- he had not named them in his original complaint nor timely moved to amend his complaint to include them. 

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

Public Citizen

RSA Enterprises v. Ripoff Report

Date: 

04/23/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Rip-Off Report.com; Google.com

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Type of Party: 

Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

Case Number: 

2:07-cv-01882

Publication Medium: 

Forum
Other

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Withdrawn

Description: 

In April 2007, building contractor RSA Enterprises, Inc. and its owner Raffi Arslanian sued Ripoff Report for defamation and trade libel over a negative report submitted to the consumer complaint website by a dissatisfied customer. In addition, RSA sued Google for disseminating the allegedly defamatory content as part of its search results. In August 2007, RSA filed a  a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice, likely because section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunized both Ripoff Report and Google for the alleged misconduct. 

The disputed report remains online, but it is now paired with a rebuttal from Raffi Arslanian.      

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

Blog Post

Priority: 

1-High

Matrixx Initiatives v. John Doe

Date: 

12/12/2002

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

John Doe; Steven Edward Dick; Sherry Jones; James Jones; Floyd D Schneider; Veritasconari; Censorshipmtxx; Janet Bossart

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County

Case Number: 

CV2002-023934

Legal Counsel: 

Ivan Mathew (Sherry and James Jones); Pro Se (all others)

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Withdrawn

Description: 

Pharmaceutical company Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. sued several named and anonymous Internet users in Arizone state court over negative posts about the company on the Yahoo! Finance and Silicon Investor message boards.  Although the court filings for the case are not available, filings in related actions state that Matrixx brought claims of defamation, trade libel, and interference with contractual relations and business expectancies.  See Matrixx Initiatives v. Doe, 138 Cal.App.4th 872, 875 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).  Matrixx alleged that it suffered "unusual" fluctuations in its stock as a result of the statements, including "relatively large-volume selling near the close of the market."  Id.

In an attempt to discern the identities of the anonymous users, Matrixx filed subpoenas against numerous individuals and organizations in other courts.  Two of these subpoenas are addressed in CMLP threat entries Matrixx Intiatives v. Barbary Coast Capital and Matrixx Initiatives v. Mulligan.  Matrixx also appears to have sought discovery in the Arizona court from Qwest Communications International Inc., but the details are not clear from the available record. 

According to the Arizona docket for the case, Matrixx voluntarily withdrew the case but reserved leave to refile at a later date.  The court granted the dismissal without prejudice on January 31, 2007.  As of December 04, 2008, Matrixx does not appear to have refiled the case.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

CyberSLAPP.org

Priority: 

1-High

Stewart v. Oklahoma Publishing Co.

Date: 

05/13/2002

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

The Oklahoma Publishing Co.; Griffin Television (KWTV-Ch.9); NewsOK LLC

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Organization

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Oklahoma District Court, Creek County; Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals

Case Number: 

No. CJ-02-490 (district court)

Legal Counsel: 

Robert Nelon - Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson

Publication Medium: 

Website

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)
Material Removed

Description: 

Dennis Stewart sued the Oklahoma Publishing Co. and others for publishing the Oklahoma Department of Corrections sex offender registry on NewsOK.com, a regional news website.  The registry incorrectly listed Stewart's address as associated with a registered offender who had previously lived at that address.  The complaint included claims for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. 

An Oklahoma jury awarded Stewart $200,000 in compensatory damages and $3.5 million in punitive damages. The defendants appealed, and the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment, holding that the defendants could not be liable because the fair report privilege covered publication of the sex offender registry.

According to the MLRC, NewsOK.com voluntarily removed the registry in February 2002 because of problems with out-of-date addresses in the data provided by the Department of Corrections.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

MLRC

Priority: 

1-High

Byrge v. Campfield

Date: 

11/01/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Stacey Campfield

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Tennessee District Court, Campbell County

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

After losing his bid for a seat in the Tennessee House of Representatives, Democratic candidate Roger Byrge sued incumbent Republican Representative Stacey Campfield for libel over statements posted on Campfield's Camp4u blog.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

MLRC

Biegel v. Norberg

Date: 

02/25/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Christopher Norberg; Does 1-25

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco

Case Number: 

CGC-08-472522

Legal Counsel: 

Michael W. Blacksburg

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Material Removed
Settled (total)

Description: 

In February 2008, chiropractor Steven Biegel sued former patient Christopher Norberg and various John Doe defendants over a critical review that Norberg posted to consumer review website Yelp.com. According to the Complaint, the review accused Biegel of being dishonest and of engaging in fraudulent billing practices. Cmplt. ¶ 9.

After Biegel's counsel threatened to sue, Norberg removed his review from Yelp.  Biegel sued anyway, bringing claims of defamation and false light invasion of privacy against Norberg in his original Complaint and the (apparently identical) Amended Complaint.

In January 2009, the parties settled the case on undisclosed terms.  Norberg replaced an earlier Yelp posting in which he said he'd been sued with the following posting:

A misunderstanding between both parties led us to act out of hand. I chose to ignore Dr. Biegel's initial request to discuss my posting. In hindsight, I should have remained open to his concerns. Both Dr. Biegel and I strongly believe in a person's right to express their opinions in a public forum. We both encourage the Internet community to act responsibly.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

Blog Post

CMLP Notes: 

Source: Overlawyered.com

Priority: 

1-High

Colorado Man Charged With Criminal Libel For Comments on Craigslist

The Loveland Connection is reporting that a Colorado man has been charged with two counts of criminal libel after allegedly posting comments about a former girlfriend and her lawyer on Craigslist.com's "Rants and Raves" section:

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

State of Colorado v. Weichel

Date: 

10/21/2008

Threat Type: 

Criminal Charge

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

J.P. Weichel

Type of Party: 

Government

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Eighth Judicial District Court, Larimer County

Legal Counsel: 

Michael Liggett

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Convicted

Description: 

J.P. Weichel has been charged with two counts of criminal libel after allegedly posting comments about a former girlfriend and her lawyer on Craigslist.com's "Rants and Raves" section.  According to the Loveland Connection:

The case in Loveland began when a woman approached the Loveland Police Department in December 2007 about multiple postings made about her between November and December 2007. At least one post suggests that she traded sexual acts for legal services from her attorney, according to court records. There's also mention about a child services visit made because of an injury found on her child.

Police obtained search warrants for records from Craigslist.com and other Web sites and identified J.P. Weichel as the suspect, the former boyfriend of the woman, who shares a child with her. In August, detectives confronted Weichel at his workplace, where police said he admitted to the postings because he was "just venting," according to the court file.

It appears that Weichel has been charged under Colorado's criminal libel law, Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-13-105, which defines criminal libel as follows:

(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel.

(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.

The charges against Weichel constitute a class 6 felony that carry a punishment of up to 18 months in prison.  A hearing is scheduled for December 2008.

Update:

5/14/09 - Weichel pled guilty to two counts of harassment and received four years probation, a five hundred dollar fine, and sixty hours of community service.

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

RSS

CMLP Notes: 

via HowAppealling

Priority: 

1-High

Manchanda Law Offices v. Xcentric Ventures

Date: 

07/25/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Xcentric Ventures, LLC d/b/a Ripoff Report.com, d/b/a Ripoff Reprt, d/b/a BadBusinessBureau.com; Edward Magedson; Nitin Rana; John Does 1-4

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Case Number: 

1:07-cv-06708

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Withdrawn

Description: 

In July 2007, Manchanda Law Offices, PLLC and attorney Rahul Manchanda (collectively "Manchanda") sued Xcentric Ventures over negative "rip-off reports" about the firm published on the Ripoff Report website, which provides a forum in which consumers may accuse companies and individuals of various "rip-off" and "bad business" practices.  According to the complaint, user statements appearing on the website falsely accused Manchanda of engaging in unethical billing practices and providing poor legal services. Cmplt.¶¶ 11-14. The complaint included claims for defamation and false light, and sought damages, a declaration that the disputed statements were false, and an injunction against future defamatory statements.

On October 10, 2007, Manchanda filed an amended complaint that named former client Nitina Rana as one of the Ripoff Report posters.  The amended complaint shifted the defamation claim to Rana alone and also brought against her a breach of contract claim and a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act. The amended complaint also included claims against Xcentric Ventures and founder Edward Magedson for violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and tortious interference with contract.

In November, 2007, four months after Manchanda filed the lawsuit, the firm still had not served the defendants with any pleadings. On November 26, 2007, Manchanda filed a motion to withdraw the lawsuit without specifying a reason.  The court granted the order without prejudice.

Manchanda apparently has not refiled the case.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

Blog Post

CMLP Notes: 

Source: SEOmoz.org

Note for whoever reviews this for publication: it appears that Rahul Manchanda (a plaintiff, who appears as counsel Pro Se) and Rahul Dev Manchanda (counsel for Rahul Manchanda and the firm) are two different people.  If there's a better way to reflect this in the counsel field, feel free. {MCS}

Priority: 

1-High

California Real Estate Companies Pursue Bogus Lanham Act Claim Against Tenants

Paul Levy of Public Citizen recently tipped us off to a new John Doe case in federal court in California.  In this case, two real estate companies, Parkmerced Investors Properties LLC and Stellar Larkspur Partners LLC, have sued eighteen unknown defendants for violation of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C.

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

Baylor v. Does

Date: 

06/30/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Doe 1 (“Jack Deth”); Doe 2 ("“Brent Leroy”)

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Madison County Circuit Court (Indiana)

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

Darrell Baylor, an Indiana insurance agent, sued two anonymous defendants who allegedly defamed him in on the Hey Martha forum, a cross-platform forum hosted by local newspaper The Herald Bulletin and other websites. Baylor alleged that forum users "Jack Deth" and "Brent Leroy" accused him of drinking alcohol, whereas he claims it is "a well known public fact that the Plaintiff has not had any type or form of alcoholic beverage since 1994."

Baylor subpoenaed The Herald Bulletin and its parent company Community Newspaper Holdings Inc., seeking the identities of the posters.  According to a Bulletin report, the paper filed a motion to quash the subpoena on the ground that it did not own or operate the forum and did not have the requested information. The paper also argued that the subpoena was invalid because it was overbroad and possibly violated the posters' privacy rights.

At a court hearing, the judge ordered the Bulletin to tell Baylor who had responsibility for the forum so that Baylor could serve a subpoena on that party.  Lawyers for the Bulletin identified Seattle-based Groupee Inc. as the operator of the forum. The Bulletin's lawyers also argued that the court should appoint counsel to represent the anonymous posters in defending their right to remain anonymous.  

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

Google News

CMLP Notes: 

No court docs yet.  Perhaps could contact the Bulletin's lawyers. {MCS}

Priority: 

1-High

Baylor v. The Herald Bulletin

Date: 

06/30/2008

Threat Type: 

Subpoena

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

The Herald Bulletin; Community Newspaper Holdings Inc.

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Intermediary
Media Company

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Madison County Circuit Court (Indiana)

Legal Counsel: 

Charles Braddock; Jimmy McDole

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

Darrell Baylor, an Indiana insurance agent, sued two anonymous defendants who allegedly defamed him in on the Hey Martha forum, a cross-platform forum hosted by local newspaper The Herald Bulletin and other websites. Baylor alleged that forum users "Jack Deth" and "Brent Leroy" accused him of drinking alcohol, whereas he claims it is "a well known public fact that the Plaintiff has not had any type or form of alcoholic beverage since 1994."

Baylor subpoenaed The Herald Bulletin and its parent company Community Newspaper Holdings Inc., seeking the identities of the posters.  According to a Bulletin report, the paper filed a motion to quash the subpoena on the ground that it did not own or operate the forum and did not have the requested information. The paper also argued that the subpoena was invalid because it was overbroad and possibly violated the posters' privacy rights.

At a court hearing, the judge ordered the Bulletin to tell Baylor who had responsibility for the forum so that Baylor could serve a subpoena on that party.  Lawyers for the Bulletin identified Seattle-based Groupee Inc. as the operator of the forum.  The Bulletin's lawyers also argued that the court should appoint counsel to represent the anonymous posters in defending their right to remain anonymous.  

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

Google News

CMLP Notes: 

No court docs yet.  Perhaps could contact the Bulletin's lawyers. {MCS}

Priority: 

1-High

D'Elia v. Renna

Date: 

11/01/2006

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Tina Renna; Patricia Quattrocchi

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

New Jersey Superior Court, Union County

Case Number: 

L -003880-06

Legal Counsel: 

Philip J. Morin III

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Description: 

Sebastian D'Elia, director of the Office of Public Information of Union County, New Jersey, filed a lawsuit against two members of The Union County Watchdog Association after they allegedly defamed him in blog posts. Defendants Tina Renna and Patricia Quattrocchi were regular posters to the watchdog group's blog, The County Watchers. According to news reports, D'Elia took issue with a blog post titled "County Hacks are Soulless Pyschopaths," which allegedly compared him to Adolf Hitler.

Both D'Elia and the defendants moved for summary judgment in the case.  After hearing oral argument on the two motions, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that D'Elia had not provided sufficient proof of damages. The court reportedly also noted that D'Elia was a public official, which meant he was subject to criticism even if it was "mean-spirited," "unflattering," and "poorly written."

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Source: Media Bloggers Association

Priority: 

1-High

George S. May International v. Xcentric Ventures

Date: 

09/15/2004

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Xcentric Ventures, LLC; Rip-Off Report.com; BadBusinessBureau.com; Ed Magedson; Various John Does, Jane Does, and ABC Companies

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Case Number: 

1:04-cv-06018

Legal Counsel: 

James Kenneth Borcia; David O Yuen; Maria Crimi Speth

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Injunction Issued
Material Removed
Settled (total)

Description: 

In September 2004, management consulting firm George S. May International Company (GSMIC) filed a  lawsuit against Ripoff Report, a consumer review website.  GSMIC's complaint included claims for defamation, "false descriptions and representations" in violation of the Lanham Act, trade libel, and deceptive trade practices.  It alleged that the site and operator Ed Magedson published false and misleading user comments accusing the company of "illegal and immoral activities." Cmplt.¶¶ 11-12

A federal district court in Illinois granted GSMIC's motion for a temporary restraining order.  The TRO prohibited Xcentric from "making, hosting or transmitting false or deceptively misleading, descriptions, statements or representations concerning George S. May, its business, owner, officers, employees and/or agents." GSMIC also requested a preliminary injunction, but the parties ultimately agreed to extend the TRO and the court never ruled on it.  In October 2008, GSMIC successfully moved the court for a finding of contempt of court for violating the TRO, and Xcentric subsequently removed eight postings that the court found violated the TRO.

Before resolution of a  complex series of motions, including one for partial summary judgment arguing that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) protected Xcentric and Magedson from liability, the parties settled the case on undisclosed terms. 

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

Blog Post

CMLP Notes: 

Source: seomoz.org.

Priority: 

1-High

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Defamation