Digital Media Law Project
Published on Digital Media Law Project (https://www.dmlp.org)

Home > Monsarrat v. Filcman

Monsarrat v. Filcman [1]

Submitted by DMLP Staff on Fri, 07/12/2013 - 09:47

Summary

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Date: 

04/30/2013

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Location: 

Massachusetts

Verdict or Settlement Amount: 

N/A

Legal Claims: 

Conspiracy
Copyright Infringement
Defamation
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Unfair Competition
On February 4, 2013, Jonathan Graves Monsarrat filed a complaint in the Superior Court Department of Middlesex County, Massachusetts against defendants Deb Filcman, Ron Newman, and John and Jane Does 1-100. The complaint alleges that the defendants posted defamatory comments... read full description
Parties

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Deb Filcman, Ron Newman, Does 1-100

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Location of Party: 

  • Massachusetts

Location of Party: 

  • United States

Legal Counsel: 

Mark Ishman (Ishman Law Firm, P.C.), David M. Click (Denner Pellegrino)

Legal Counsel: 

Dan Booth (Booth Sweet LLP), Zachary C. Kleinsasser, Michael J. Grygiel (Greenberg Traurig, LLP)
Description

On February 4, 2013, Jonathan Graves Monsarrat filed a complaint [2] in the Superior Court Department of Middlesex County, Massachusetts against defendants Deb Filcman, Ron Newman, and John and Jane Does 1-100. The complaint alleges that the defendants posted defamatory comments about the plaintiff on the website www.LiveJournal.com [3] beginning on February 4, 2010, which related a linked-to blog post by defendant Filcman on the Somerville Journal's "Wicked Local" webpage. Defendant Newman administers the "davis square" forum on the site on which Monsarrat alleges many of the defamatory responses were posted. As LiveJournal is an online forum, many users are known only by aliases; Monsarrat asserted claims against these commentators by naming them as "John and Jane Does 1 through 100" until their identities could be ascertained through the discovery process.

The defendants' posts concerned Monsarrat's arrest on January 29, 2010, in connection with charged of keeping a noisy and disorderly home and serving alcohol to persons under 21. While these charges were ultimately dismissed against Monsarrat, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants' comments ruined his "reputation, regard, esteem and goodwill." The complaint cites to many of the comments posters made to the "davis square" forum, alleging that these posts are particularly defamatory as they affect him and his businesses locally.

Monsarrat's complaint included claims for: defamation; a violation of Massachusetts' Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93A; business disparagement; common law copyright infringement (based on photographs taken from Monsarrat's website); intentional infliction of emotional distress; and civil conspiracy.

The complaint alleges that the defendants "intentionally planned and orchestrated this cybersmear attach" [sic] and that defendants "conspired together" to commit the acts which injured Monsarrat. Monsarrat's complaint claims damages amounting to over $500,000 from medical expenses, lost wages (documented and anticipated), and reputational damages.

On April 30, 2013, Monsarrat filed an amended complaint [4]. The amended complaint included all of the initial allegations, and added that under Monsarrat's fourth claim for relief - common law copyright infringement - the defendants' misappropriation was not "for fair use or satire purposes" but instead "in furtherance of their collective willful, wanton and tortious conduct." The amended complaint also included additional damage demands in the form of "costs and disbursements plus interest from the date of commencement" of the action.

On May 14, 2013, defendant Newman's attorney sent a letter in response [5] to Monsarrat's complaint. The answer described Newman's discussion on the LiveJournal forum as "promoting respectful, lively conversation without imposing ham-fisted restraint on the free speech of the community." The letter addressed each of the complaint's assertions in turn, including asserting that:

  • no statements attributed to Newman could sustain a defamation claim;
  • the complaint did not state a Chapter 93A claim against any defendant, and Monsarrat had failed to send a pre-suit demand letter to Newman as required under Chapter 93A;
  • on the business disparagement claim, Monsarrat's complaint did not point to any "actionably false statements" by the defendants, and did not identify any of the plaintiff's products that were disparaged;
  •  "there is no such thing" as common-law copyright infringement;
  • Monsarrat's infliction of emotional distress claim would fail as the complaint does not show that the defendant acted without privilege;
  • on the conspiracy claim, the complaint does not "identify any statement or action by which Mr. Newman could be inferred to have agreed to injure the plaintiff"; and
  • punitive damages for defamation have not been permitted in Massachusetts since 1974.

The May 14th letter claims that Monsarrat's claims are wholly without merit and were brought in bad faith, and demands that Monsarrat's attorney file a notice voluntarily dismissing the complaint with prejudice or else face sanctions.

On May 28, 2013, defendant Filcman's attorney sent a letter in response [6] to Monsarrat's complaint. The letter contends that Filcman's article on Monsarrat's January 2010 arrest is protected under the First Amendment and adds that the plaintiff's allegation of a "wide-spread cyber-smear campaign" is without basis "in fact or law" and "frivolous, abusive, and harassing." In addressing the defamation claims, the letter points to Massachusetts' fair report privilege that provides a safe harbor on fair and accurate reports. The letter also asserts that there is "no such thing" as a common law copyright claim, and under the federal Copyright Act, the plaintiff's photograph was not federally registered and his claim would therefore fail.

On June 7, 2013, Monsarrat's attorney filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice [7] (a copy of the official text is posted on LiveJournal). No settlement was reported on the docket of the court and no payments were made.

Details

Web Site(s) Involved: 

www.livejournal.com [8]

http://davis-square.livejournal.com/tag/jonmon [9]

http://davis-square.livejournal.com/2101375.html [10]

http://davis-square.livejournal.com/3178264.html [11]

http://davis-square.livejournal.com/3173326.html [12]

Content Type: 

  • Photo
  • Text

Publication Medium: 

Website

Subject Area: 

  • Copyright
  • Defamation
  • Third-Party Content
  • Free Speech
  • Cyberbullying
  • User Comments or Submissions
  • Social Media
Court Information & Documents

Jurisdiction: 

  • Massachusetts

Source of Law: 

  • Massachusetts

Court Name: 

Middlesex Superior Court Department of the Trial Court of Massachusetts

Court Type: 

State

Case Number: 

MICV2013-00399-C

Relevant Documents: 

PDF icon 2013-02-04-Complaint.pdf [2]
PDF icon 2013-04-30-Amended Complaint.pdf [4]
PDF icon 2013-05-14-Letter to Monsarrat's Attny.pdf [5]
PDF icon 2013-05-28-Letter to Monsarrat's Attny.pdf [6]

DMLP Logo


Source URL (modified on 08/20/2014 - 11:12pm): https://www.dmlp.org/threats/monsarrat-v-filcman

Links
[1] https://www.dmlp.org/threats/monsarrat-v-filcman
[2] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/2013-02-04-Complaint.pdf
[3] http://www.LiveJournal.com
[4] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/2013-04-30-Amended%20Complaint.pdf
[5] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/2013-05-14-Letter%20to%20Monsarrat%27s%20Attny.pdf
[6] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/2013-05-28-Letter%20to%20Monsarrat%27s%20Attny.pdf
[7] http://davis-square.livejournal.com/3210643.html
[8] http://www.livejournal.com
[9] http://davis-square.livejournal.com/tag/jonmon
[10] http://davis-square.livejournal.com/2101375.html
[11] http://davis-square.livejournal.com/3178264.html
[12] http://davis-square.livejournal.com/3173326.html