Text

Rajagopal v. Does

Date: 

10/22/2010

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

John Does 1-10

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Henrico Circuit Court, Virginia

Case Number: 

CL 10-3014

Legal Counsel: 

Michael H. Page, Paul A. Levy, Public Citizen Litigation Group; Rebecca K. Glenberg, ACLU of Virginia

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

Usha Rajagopal, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, sued ten John Does for defamation and various business torts in Virginia state court.  The claims stem from reviews of Rajagopal posted by the defendants on Google.com. Rajagopal also subpoenaed Google to determine the identities of five of the Does.

One of the Does, Cannoli38, moved to quash the subpoena.  He argued that because he and the other Does have a First Amendment right to speak anonymously, Rajagopal must make a five-part showing that satisfies the Dendrite standard to identify the Does.  Cannoli38 argued that Rajagopal did not give the Does noticed as required by Dendrite, nor did she provide any evidence supporting her claims against the Does.

Cannoli38 alleged that the Does' reviews consisted solely of opinion statements, which are protected by the First Amendment, and restatements of an article from SFWeekly, a San Francisco news site, that posted a story about Rajagopal's advertising practices and allegations brought against her by the California Medical Board.  Cannoli38 argued that the balance of the equities weighed against Rajagopal.

Cannoli38 also called upon Rajagopal and her attorney to be sanctioned, as he argued the lawsuit is meritless, has no ties to Virginia, and was meant to be an end run around California's anti-SLAPP law, which would likely prevent Rajagopal from pursuing the case in her home state.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Righthaven LLC v. Hoehn

Date: 

01/11/2011

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Wayne Hoehn

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the District of Nevada

Case Number: 

2:11-cv-00050

Legal Counsel: 

Marc Randazza, James M DeVoy of Randazza Legal Group

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Description: 

Righthaven LLC, a Las Vegas company associated with Las Vegas Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Wayne Hoehn.  Righthaven alleged that Hoehn copied an article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal without permission and posted it to the forums of the website Madjack Sports.

In his answer, Hoehn argued that his use of the article was protected as fair use, and that the court lacked jurisdiction over the case, as Hoehn is a Kentucky resident, the website in question is hosted in California, and his comments concerned matters in California and Illinois. 

Hoehn filed a motion for summary judgment on February 2, 2011, arguing that his copying of the article was for a transformative purpose and educational use.  As such, Hoehn wrote, his copying is protected as fair use and as Righthaven failed to show otherwise, he is entitled to summary judgment.  In its response, Righthaven argued that there are too many genuine issues of fact regarding Hoehn's copying to warrant summary judgment, and that Hoehn's copying was not fair use.

Update:

3/24/2011 - Hoehn filed a response to Righthaven's opposition to his motion for summary judgment, arguing that the court has all the facts it needs to rule on summary judgment.  Hoehn's substantive argument relies heavily on U.S. District Judge James Mahan's March 18 decision to dismiss another Righthaven lawsuit, Righthaven LLC v. Center for Intercultural Organizing, on fair use grounds.  In that case, the defendant copied an entire article for educational purposes.  Hoehn argued that the facts of his case are analogous, and therefore deserving of the same fair use protection.

4/17/2011 - Hoehn filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, based on the recently-unsealed agreement that purported to assign Stephens Media's copyright in various content to Righthaven.  Hoehn argued that the agreement, which was unsealed by the court hearing Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground LLC, shows that Righthaven lacks the standing to sue because Righthaven was not the exclusive holder of any rights in the copyrighted material at issue in the lawsuit.  Under Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entm’t, Inc., 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005), a plaintiff must be the exclusive holder in a copyright to sue.  Under the unsealed agreement, Stephens Media retained exclusive rights in the works, thereby preventing Righthaven from being able to sue on the copyright.

6/20/2011 - Court granted Defendant's Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and for Summary Judgement. 

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

More docs from Randazza - AAB 3/24/11

More docs from Jay - AAB 4/18/11

Priority: 

2-Normal

Wrink A Bull Kennels v. Jonathan & Ashley Avidan

Date: 

03/04/2011

Threat Type: 

Correspondence

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Jonathan & Ashley Avidan

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Publication Medium: 

Blog
Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

The letter sent from Wrink a Bull Kennels is a Cease and Desist order for what she calls malicious and comments that are slander.All of the comments made on the BLOG and to the Department are accurate and supported by medical documentation.

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Software Best Practices and Open Source Derivative Works

We received a request not long ago from one of the lawyers in our Online Media Legal Network who is looking for legal resources on a couple different issues tied to software development, particularly open source software development.  And frankly, they're the sorts of resources that we expect more and more lawyers will have need for.  Thus, we're reposting the requests here - along with my first stab at researching them - in the hopes of drumming up a bit of crowdsourcing to find the answers.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Righthaven LLC v. Hyatt

Date: 

10/06/2010

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Bill Hyatt

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court, District of Nevada

Case Number: 

2:10-cv-01736

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

Righthaven LLC, a Las Vegas company associated with Las Vegas Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Bill Hyatt, a New York blogger.  Righthaven alleged that Hyatt copied an article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal without permission and posted it on his website, 1ce.org.

After Hyatt did not respond to Righthaven's lawsuit, on February 10, 2011, Righthaven filed a motion for default judgment and demanded it be awarded attorney fees, $150,000 in statutory damages, and an order that 1ce.org be transferred from Hyatt to Righthaven.

Update: 

2/23/2011 - The Media Bloggers Association ("MBA") moved to file an amicus brief with the court.  In the brief, the MBA argued that Righthaven's claim to ownership of the copyright in the article in question is dubious, as the copyright assignment appears to be invalid.  The MBA also argued that Righthaven should not be awarded any more than nominal damages at most, as it "is not a content producer trying to preserve ts relevant market from the unceasing raids of content pirates, but a dedicated litigation house that acquires rights from other entities solely to sue essentially defenseless 'infringers' for their supposed infringement."  And the MBA argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to order the transfer of 1ce.org to Righthaven, as such an award is only an appropriate remedy in cybersquatting cases, which this is not.

4/14/2011 - The court granted the MBA's motion to file an amicus brief.

4/14/2011 - The MBA files the amicus brief.

4/19/2011 - The MBA files  a supplement to their amicus brief containing a "Strategic Alliance Agreement" (SAA) between Righthaven and Stephens Media, alleging that the SAA is the document that Righthaven relies upon for its right to sue for violations of Stephens Media copyrights.

4/19/2011 - Plaintiff Righthaven files a motion to strike the supplement.

4/28/2011 - Plaintiff Righthaven and the MBA agree to a stipulation for an extension of time to respond the MBA amicus brief. The stipulation also allows the MBA to file the SAA.

5/05/2011 - The court issues an order approving the stipulation filed on 4/28/2011.

5/06/2011 - The MBA withdraws its supplement filed 4/19/2011, stating that the stipulation filed 4/28/2011 allowing them to file the SAA renders the supplement unnecessary.

5/10/2011 - Righthaven files a response brief to the MBA's amicus brief in which it characterizes the MBA brief as a late attack on its business model, stating that the MBA’s filing is untimely after the Defendant’s default. Furthermore, Righthaven argues that even if the MBA was not too late, it lacked standing as a third party not affected by the contract. Finally, Righthaven states that the record and the SAA between Righthaven and Stephens Media shows that all rights of the copyright were sold to Righthaven, not just the right to sue as the amicus brief alleges.  In support of this statement, Righthaven submits the declarations of its CEO, Steven A. Gibson, and the General Counsel of Stephens Media, Mark A. Hinueber, both of whom rely upon a “Clarification and Amendment to the Strategic Alliance Agreement” effective January 18, 2010, which is attached to the declarations.

5/16/2011 - The MBA files a reply brief to Righthaven's response, arguing that even in light of the “Clarification,” the SAA is still nothing more than an attempted transfer of a bare right to sue for copyright infringement without a true transfer of exclusive copyright rights as required by the Copyright Act. Specifically, the MBA cites to the fact that Stephens Media still retains a right of reversion of the copyright under the Clarification and because Righthaven must give thirty days notice to Stephens Media for any use of the copyright other than litigation.  Thus, the MBA argues, Stephens Media never assigned its copyrights fully to Righthaven.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Randazza sent us the amicus brief - AAB 2/24/11

Jay emailed us about the motion being granted. - AAB 4/15/11

Dan Snyder is butthurt, SLAPP suit ensues, Irony meter pegged

Washington Redskins owner, Dan Snyder, seems to have awfully thin skin for a guy who owns a sports team named after a racial insult.

Snyder filed a frivolous defamation suit against the Washington City Paper ("WCP") based upon an article "The Cranky Redskins Fan's Guide to Dan Snyder."

Snyder accuses the WCP of spreading "lies, half-truths, innuendo, and anti-Semitic imagery" to defame him, seeking $2 million in damages.  The amount is split between two claims, the first for defamation and the second for false light.  The "anti-semitic imagery" he complains of is a crude addition of horns, a unibrow and Anton LaVey-esque goatee to Snyder's photograph in the WCP, which can be seen here.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Federici v Pignotti et al

Date: 

12/17/2010

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Monica Pignotti, Jean Mercer, Charly Miller, Linda Rosa, Larry Sarner, Advocates for Children in Therapy, John Does 1-10

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

Virginia Eastern District Court, Alexandria

Case Number: 

1:2010cv01418

Legal Counsel: 

Amy Owen, Kirstin Zech, Sarah Bagley

Publication Medium: 

Blog
Forum
Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Description: 

Virginia Psychologist Ronald S. Federici is suing multiple parties from multiple states (Florida, New Jersey, Nebraska, Colorado) for defamation, conspiracy, and tortious interference. Defendants are authors of blogs, forum comments, and websites that were critical of his writings and practices. Plaintiff has also named John Does 1-10, alleging conspiracy with unidentified anonymous bloggers and others.
Public documents on this case are available via Pacer.

Update:

3/28/11 -  The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The court also granted the motion of defendants Pignotti and Mercer to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

5/31/11 - After the claims against the named defendants were dismissed, Federici moved to dismiss without prejudice the claims against the John Doe defendants.

6/1/11 - The court granted Federici's motion to dismiss the remaining claims against the John Does. 

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

First Amendment Alert! Author arrested for writing a book

I'm the first to admit that Phillip Greaves is not the most sympathetic figure in America. Greaves wrote "The Pedophile's Guide," which was originally for sale on Amazon.com before the online retailer bowed to public pressure and pulled the book from its online shelves.

I don't necessarily have a problem with that.

But, I have a big problem with today's developments. The Orlando Sentinel reports that Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd had Mr. Greaves arrested in Pueblo, Colorado on obscenity charges.

Lets remember that Grady Judd's jurisdiction is home to meth labs, cops who diddle children, and a pretty high incest rate.

Despite the "real crime" in his jurisdiction, Judd instructed his detectives to request an autographed copy of the book. Mr. Greaves obliged and Judd used that as his justification for having Greaves indicted on obscenity charges in his little caliphate of inbred-methistan.

Greaves told ABC News last month he wasn't trying to promote pedophilia and was not himself a pedophile: "I'm not saying I want them around children, I'm saying if they're there, that's how I want them to [behave]." (source)

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Reit v. Yelp

Date: 

03/04/2010

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Yelp! Inc. and John Doe, aka "Michael S."

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

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

Case Number: 

6005551/2010

Legal Counsel: 

Marc J. Randazza and Jessica S. Christensen - Randazza Legal Group (for Michael S.)

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Dismissed (partial)

Description: 

Glenn Reit, a Manhattan dentist, sued Yelp! and John Doe (Michael S.) for defamation and Yelp! for deceptive acts and practices under New York’s General Business Law § 349 and § 350.  

According to his complaint, as of May 2009, Dr. Reit's Yelp page had 11 reviews: 10 favorable and 1 negative review from a user named "Michael S."  Dr. Reit alleges the Michael S. posting was defamatory because it included "statements that his office is 'small,' 'old' and 'smelly,' and 'the equipment is old and dirty.'  Dr. Reit alleges that Michael S.'s post caused him to lose 5-11 calls per day.  

When Dr. Reit complained to Yelp about the review, he claims that Yelp removed all of the positive reviews and kept only Michael S.'s post. Eventually, that post was removed too. Dr. Reit argues that Yelp removed the positive posts as part of Yelp's alleged scheme to get business owners to pay for advertising.

In addition to monetary damages, Dr. Reit sought an order requiring Yelp to delete all references to him and his dental practice from Yelp.com. The court initial granted a temporary restraining order, but ultimately dismissed the claims against Yelp based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

The defamation claim against Michael S. remains pending.  

Update:

10/25/2010 - Defendant Michael S. filed a Petition to Quash Out-of-State Sub Duces Tecum and Request for Sanctions in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco

11/22/2010 - Plaintiff filed Opposition to the Petition and Request for Sanctions

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

User Feedback

North Summit Company, et. al v. Edward L. Petersen, et. al.

Date: 

01/27/2009

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Edward L. Petersen

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Second Judicial District Court of Nevada

Case Number: 

CV09-00238

Legal Counsel: 

pro se

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

North Summit Company, LLC has sued Edward L. Petersen for publishing anonymous comments on ApartmentRatings.com. Plaintiffs have submitted no proof that Defendant is the party responsible for the postings, many of which were published as many as five years before Defendant first rented from Plaintiffs.

A motion for summary judgment has been filed, and is pending.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Marshals v. ahowardmatz.com

Date: 

07/09/2010

Threat Type: 

Criminal Charge

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Author of the site.

Type of Party: 

Government

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

Jusge A. Howard Matz

Legal Counsel: 

Pro Se

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Disposition: 

Material Removed

Description: 

The nature of the threat is a secret, known only to judge A. Howard Matz and Agent Smith.The complaint was on July 9, 2010. The site was removed on or about October 7, 2010.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

When Art Imitates Life: Suing for Defamation in Fiction

CMLP received an email from a novelist asking us how far she can take the advice, "write what you know." Would she risk being sued for libel if she based a character in her fictional work on a person she knows and dislikes in real life? Could she be held accountable if her fictional work were actually semi-autobiographical and described not only her own real-life actions, but also those taken by others?

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground

Date: 

08/10/2010

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Democratic Underground, LLC; David Allen

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the District of Nevada

Case Number: 

2:10-cv-01356

Legal Counsel: 

Andrew P. Bridges, Winston & Strawn; Kurt Opshal, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

On August 10, 2010, Righthaven LLC, a Las Vegas company associated with Las Vegas Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the website Democratic Underground ("DU") and its owner, David Allen. 

As illustrated by an exhibit to the Complaint, a DU user going by the screen name "pampango" posted the first four paragraphs of a Review-Journal article entitled "Tea Party power fuels Angle" in the website's forums on May 13, 2010, with a link back to the remainder of the 34-paragraph article on the Review-Journal website. The Complaint seeks statutory damages for willful infringement, transfer of the democraticunderground.com domain name, and costs and attorneys' fees.

On September 27, 2010, attorneys for DU, including attorneys with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, filed an Answer and Counterclaims against Righthaven, seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.  The counterclaims also named Stephens Media.

Update:

11/15/2010 - Righthaven moved to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice its complaint against DU.  Righthaven said that its decision was based on an intervening fair use ruling in Righthaven LLC v. Realty One Group, Inc., and argued that it would be unfair to force Righthaven to continue to litigate its present case.

11/17/2010 - Stephens Media moved to dismiss or strike DU's counterclaims against it.  Stephens Media argued that no controversy existed between it and DU, and that DU failed to state a claim against Stephens Media.  Stephens Media also partially joined Righthaven's motion to voluntarily dismiss its complaint.

12/7/2010 - DU filed briefs in opposition to both Righthaven's motion for voluntary dismissal and Stephens Media's motion to dismiss.  DU argued that Righthaven's complaint was meritless from the start, and that DU was entitled to seek attorneys fees even if Righthaven dropped the complaint.  DU also argued that its counterclaims against Righthaven did not depend on Righthaven's complaint, and thus still merited litigating.  Regarding the Stephens Media motion, DU argued that its counterclaim against Stephens Media did set out a controversy between the parties, and that the dismissal of Righthaven's complaint had no bearing upon that controversy.

3/4/2011 - DU filed a motion to for leave to file a supplemental memo addressing new evidence relating to various pending motions.  DU also moved to seal its motion as the evidence contained documents marked "Confidential Attorneys’ Eyes Only" by Stephens Media.  DU said it would seal the documents until it could discuss with opposing counsel which portions should be made publicly available.

3/29/2011 - DU moved to unseal the documents.  DU stated that Stephens Media and Righthaven refused to lift its designation of  "Confidential Attorneys’ Eyes Only" and did not reach a stipulated resolution with DU.  DU added that Stephens Media and Righthaven failed to file any justification with the court for keeping the documents sealed.  Thus, DU argued, they failed to meet their burden of showing why the documents should remain sealed, and so the documents should be made public.

4/11/2011 - The court granted DU's motion to unseal the documents.  The documents were revealed to include a "Strategic Alliance Agreement" between Stephens Media and Righthaven, describing the terms of copyright assignments for the purposes of litigation against infringers.  The agreement states among other things that Righthaven has no right to exploit the copyrights at issue, other than via recovery from lawsuits, and that Stephens Media retains control over who Righthaven sues.

6/14/2011 - Court concluded that there was no absolute transfer of any right within copyright, and that Stephens Media, the original copyright holder, retained actual control even over the right to sue for infringement. Finding that "[p]ursuant to Section 501(b) of the 1976 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et. seq., only the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under copyright law is entitled, or has standing, to sue for infringement," the court held that Righthaven lacks the ability to bring the instant case. As such, it grants Democratic Undergound's motion for summary judgment, and dismisses as moot the Motions from Stephens Media and Righthaven. 

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Priority: 

1-High

Davis v. Avvo, Inc.

Date: 

08/26/2010

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Avvo, Inc.

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Organization

Court Type: 

Federal
State

Court Name: 

Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, Civil Division; U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida; U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Case Number: 

10-12785CI11 (Fla. state); 8:10-cv-02352 (Fla. fed.); 2:11-cv-01571 (Wash. fed.)

Legal Counsel: 

Gregg D. Thomas, Susan Tillotson Bunch, Paul R. McAdoo, Thomas & LoCicero PL

Publication Medium: 

Social Network

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

Florida attorney Larry Joe Davis, Jr. filed a complaint in Florida state court against Avvo, Inc.  Avvo operates a website, www.avvo.com, that serves as a social networking site for attorneys and doctors.  The site also allows members of the public to research attorneys by maintaining profile pages for individual attorneys on which Avvo provides information about the attorney's practice and a numerical rating for the attorney.  The profile pages also allow members of the public to post comments about the attorney.  Avvo does not permit attorneys to withdraw or to shut down their profiles after initially "claiming" the profile.

Davis claims that Avvo (1) defamed him in the information contained in his attorney profile, including allegedly incorrect information regarding the nature of his law practice and his level of public recognition, (2) engaged in the unauthorized commercial use of his likeness by posting a photo of Davis on the profile page, and (3) engaged in unlawful trade practices by placing allegedly false information on Davis's profile page, requiring him to "claim" the page in order to correct the information, and then refusing to allow him to remove the page because it had been claimed.

Updates:

  •  9-14-2010: Davis files an Amended Complaint, deleting his claims for libel and replacing them with claims for false light invasion of privacy and false advertising based upon the alleged misrepresentation of his practice area.
  • 10-19-2010: Avvo removes the case to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on the basis of diversity of citizenship.
  • 4-25-2011: Davis files his Third Amended Complaint.
  • 5-23-2011: Avvo moves to strike Davis's Third Amended Complaint.
  • 5-30-2011: Avvo moves to transfer venue to the Western District of Washington, arguing that Davis agreed to the website's Terms of Use which include a choice of venue provision naming the Washington district.
  • 7-7-2011: The court denies as moot Avvo's motion to strike the Third Amended Complaint.
  • 9-13-2011: The court grants Avvo's motion to transfer venue to the Western District of Washington.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Back in Court, GateHouse Gives Not Great News Based on Creative Commons License

GateHouse Media, Inc., a publisher of local newspapers is suing That's Great News, LLC (TGN) in Illinois federal district court, claiming breach of contract and copyright infringement.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

GateHouse Media v. That's Great News

Date: 

06/30/2010

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

That's Great News, LLC

Type of Party: 

Media Company

Type of Party: 

Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division

Case Number: 

3:10-cv-50165

Publication Medium: 

Other

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

On June 30, 2010, GateHouse Media, Inc., a publisher of local newspapers around the country, sued That's Great News, LLC (TGN), in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleged breach of contract, copyright infringement, trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition.

TGN sells plaques with article reprints to the people and companies featured in the articles. According to allegations in the complaint, TGN had reprinted copyrighted materials from GateHouse's newspapers, including the Illinois paper Rockford Register Star,without authorization. Also according to GateHouse, TGN displayed GateHouse materials on its own web site "as an example of the reprints it sells," which violated the noncommercial and no-derivative works limitations of the Creative Commons license.

Furthermore, GateHouse argued that TGN's conduct violated the terms of a settlement agreement the parties signed on or about October 8, 2008.  According to GateHouse's complaint, GateHouse sent TGN a cease and desist letter on September 10, 2008, after which TGN agreed "to permanently cease the unauthorized copying of original content appearing in any GateHouse newspapers or websites."

On July 26, 2010, TGN moved to extend the time to file its answer until August 9, 2010. 

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

Blog Post

CMLP Notes: 

I'm not sure I treated this threat properly. I tried to write a sentence or two reagrding each of GateHouse's claims since there are so many of them.

Fitzgerald v. Maslona

Date: 

06/02/2010

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Helen Maslona

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Circuit Court of Cook County

Case Number: 

2010-M1-500855

Legal Counsel: 

Deborah A. Grimm

Publication Medium: 

Website

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

On June 2, 2010, Michael Fitzgerald, owner of Chicago's All Fields of Concrete Construction, filed a defamation lawsuit against Helen Maslona in Illinois state court.  The lawsuit seeks $10,000 in damages and court costs.

According to news reports, the lawsuit is based on a negative review of the company submitted by Maslona to the popular consumer review website Angie's List.  Maslona had contacted All Fields of Concrete Construction to request an estimate for performing work, based on the company's Angie's List profile which indicated that Maslona's neighborhood was one of the ones serviced by the company.  Upon being informed that the company did not accept work in her neighborhood, Maslona allegedly submitted a negative review of the company to Angie's List, giving it an "F."

Court documents indicate that an attorney has appeared in the case on behalf of Maslona, and has filed a motion on her behalf. 

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

Blog Post

Hester v. Does

Date: 

04/20/2010

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

John Doe 1, aka Beautiful Dreamer; John Doe 2, aka Confused; John Doe 3, aka Fatboy; John Does 4-20

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

North Carolina Superior Court, Vance County

Case Number: 

10-cvs-361

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Description: 

In April 2010, Thomas S. Hester, Jr., a former Vance County commissioner running for reelection, sued 20 John Does for defamation in North Carolina Superior Court over comments appearing on the Home in Henderson blog. The comments in question were attached to a blog post entitled "Arrest Made in Elder Abuse Case," which appeared on Home in Henderson eight months prior. According to Hester's complaint, the commenters used screen names like "Beautiful Dreamer" and "Fatboy" to make false statements suggesting that Hester was a slumlord and should be jailed.

Hester served a subpoena on Jason A. Feingold, editor of the blog, commanding him to appear for a deposition and to turn over identifying information for the commenters. Feingold and Home in Henderson filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that both the North Carolina shield law and the First Amendment protect the commenters' identifies from disclosure.

On June 28, 2010, Judge Howard E. Manning, Jr. found that the statements of six of the twenty commenters were actionable and enforced the subpoena as to these commenters. The court quashed the subpoena with respect to the remaining commenters. Three days later, Robert D. Gupton identified himself on a local radio show as "Point Keeper," one of the six commenters.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

Blog Post

Hester v. Home in Henderson

Date: 

04/08/2010

Threat Type: 

Subpoena

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Jason A. Feingold; Home in Henderson, Inc.

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

North Carolina Superior Court, Vance County

Case Number: 

10-cvs-361

Legal Counsel: 

C. Amanda Martin - Everett, Gaskins, Hancock & Stevens, LLP

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Subpoena Enforced

Description: 

On April 8, 2010, attorneys for former Vance County commissioner Thomas S. Hester, Jr. served a subpoena on Jason A. Feingold, editor of the Home in Henderson blog, commanding him to appear for a deposition and to turn over identifying information for 20 blog commenters. The comments in question were attached to Feingold's blog post entitled "Arrest Made in Elder Abuse Case," which appeared on Home in Henderson eight months prior. According to Hester's complaint, the commenters used screen names like "Beautiful Dreamer" and "Fatboy" to make false statements suggesting that Hester was a slumlord and should be jailed.

Feingold and Home in Henderson filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that both the North Carolina shield law and the First Amendment protect the commenters' identifies from disclosure.

On June 28, 2010, Judge Howard E. Manning, Jr. found that the statements of six of the twenty commenters were actionable and enforced the subpoena as to these commenters. The court quashed the subpoena with respect to the remaining commenters. Three days later, Robert D. Gupton identified himself on a local radio show as "Point Keeper," one of the six commenters.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Threat Source: 

Blog Post

Confederate Motors, Inc. v. Gawker Media LLC

Date: 

05/14/2009

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Wes Siler; Grant Ray; Jalopnik.com; Gawker Media LLC

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

Case Number: 

09-CV-00949

Legal Counsel: 

Burr & Forman LLP & Davis Wright Tremaine LLP (for Gawker defendants)

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Settled (total)

Description: 

On May 14, 2009, Confederate Motors filed a lawsuit in federal district court against Gawker Media, Jalopnik.com, Grant Ray, and Wes Siler for statements in an article titled "Confederate Motorcycles: MotoTerminators Come to Life," published online at Jalopnik.com on April 9, 2009. The complaint sought an injunction and damages from tortious interference with business relations, negligence, libel per se, and libel per quod.

Confederate Motors is in the business of manufacturing and selling motorcycles. Gawker Media is an online media network and owns Jalopnik.com, which is described as a website for car enthusiasts. The defendant Wes Siler wrote the article in dispute and is a road-test editor and writer for the Jalopnik website. (According to the complaint, defendant Grant Ray was a former employee of Confederate Motors and a business partner of Wes Siler.)

The article at issue stated that Confederate Motor's products were unreliable and that the business was unable to do business in New York because of numerous lawsuits from disgruntled customers.

Upon Gawker's motion to dismiss, the trial court dismissed the libel per se claim (the alleged statements did not reach libel per se because they did not impute dishonesty and corruption to the plaintiff) and the negligence claim (Confederate Motors did not identify a duty owed by Gawker). The parties subsequently settled and the case was dismissed with prejudice on June 7, 2010.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Text