Hamad v. Horowitz [1]

Riad Hamad, founder of the Palestine Children's Welfare Fund (PCWF), filed a defamation suit against the editor and publisher of online publication FrontPage Magazine and several other defendants.  Hamad alleged that a FrontPage article accused Hamad and PCWF of funneling money to terrorists, called Hamad an anti-Semite, and otherwise disparaged him and his organization.

Hamad's original complaint brought approximately 15 legal claims against FrontPage editor David Horowitz and publisher Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) and asked for $80 million in damages.  Hamad subsequently amended his complaint five times, progressively adding more defendants and legal claims related to the FrontPage article and postings from other sites. These claims included business disparagement, tortious interference, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, negligence, and trademark dilution, among others.

The district court dismissed all of Hamad's claims in three 2006 and 2007 orders. Each claim was dismissed in part because the one-year statute of limitations for defamation actions had run -- Hamad had filed suit in 2006, while the articles were published in 2003 and 2004.  In finding that the statute of limitations had passed, the court applied the single publication rule: it determined that the statue of limitations began running when each article was first published online.

In the three orders, the court also dismissed most of Hamad's claims on alternative grounds, such as lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and immunity under CDA 230 (with respect to Dotster, Inc., a domain registrar).

In the second [2] of the three orders, the court sanctioned Hamad for repeatedly amending his complaint without permission and for failing to heed a court warning that he would face sanctions if he did not voluntarily dismiss his complaint.  The court ordered him to pay $3,000 in sanctions.

Rather than voluntarily dismissing his suit following the sanctions, Hamad filed for default judgment as to some of the parties.  As a result, the third and final court order [3] dismissed Hamad's remaining claims and ordered him to pay $9,000 in sanctions and more than $50,000 in defendants' fees and costs.  Hamad appealed.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, relying primarily on the statute of limitations.  The court also granted defendants' request for fees arising from Hamad's "frivolous" appeal, amounting to more than $30,000.

All told, Hamad was ordered to pay more than $92,000 in sanctions, fees, and costs.