Hagele v. Hanson [1]

In January 2003, Brent Hanson filed a lawsuit against Glenn Hagele in the Illinois state court. The Illinois court dismissed the case. In May 2005, Hanson published on his website, LasikFraud.com, a letter which purported to be from "ACE Judgment Recovery Services" seeking to collect $2,850 in connection with the Illinois case. The letter stated that Hanson had won a judgment against Hagele and that ACE would collect the judgment. According to Hagele, Hanson and/or unknown accomplices republished the letter and related statements on other websites, Internet bulletin boards, and newsgroups, and in emails.

Hagele sued Hanson in California state court in March 2006. It appears that Hanson did not respond to the suit for a number of months, leading Hagele to file a motion for entry of a default judgment. The record is not clear on this point, but it appears that the court denied the motion, and Hanson eventually appeared, filing an answer in February 2007.

Update:

3/4/2008 - Court granted [2] Hagele's motion for a temporary restraining order against Hanson, preventing Hanson from publishing any of Hagele's private information.

On 1/9/09 and again on 5/11/09 Hagele amended his complaint to name five Does: Elvira Galindo, Paula Cofer, Dean Kantis, Richard Zickefoose, and Micro Jet Positions, LLP.

2/11/2010 - Hagele amended his complaint to name Does 6 and 7 as Charles McKinnon and Charles McKinnon d/b/a ACE Judgment Recovery Service, respectively.

7/13/2010 - Hagele amended his complaint to name Doe 8 as Lauranell Burch.

8/31/2010 - Burch moved to strike [3] Hagele's complaint as a SLAPP suit.

10/1/2010 - Hagele requested to dismiss his claims [4] against Burch.

12/16/2010 - Court, noting that Hagele cannot avoid mandatory fees by dismissal of his claims against Burch, awards attorney fees to Burch [5] under California's SLAPP statute.

3/10/2011 - In a subsequent order on attorneys fees [6], the court further articulated the grounds for dismissing the claim against Burch as a SLAPP. The court found that the plaintiff was highly unlikely to succeed under the merits, in part because Burch re-posted the letter originally posted by defendant Hudson, and thus her actions were likely protected by 47 U.S.C. § 230 [7]. The court also found that Hagele was a limited purpose public figure, and thus would have to show that Burch posted the material with actual malice. The court initially awarded $16,857 in attorneys fees to defendant Burch, and subsequently awarded [8] an additional $13,125.

4/25/2011 - Hagele filed a request to dismiss [9] defendant Cofer without prejudice.

5/24/2011 - Hanson filed a motion to dismiss [10] the case and accompanying memorandum [11] for failure to bring to trial within five years, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 583.310 [12].

6/30/2011 - Hanson filed a motion for summary judgment [13] on the merits of the defamation and privacy claims, arguing that Hagele could not show that Hudson published the letter with actual malice, and that the claim for invasion of privacy should be dismissed because the document in question was a public court filing.

7/1/2011 - Following a filing declaring that Hagele had suffered a stroke, the court ordered a stay of the proceedings [14] until December 11, 2011.

7/21/2011 - The court ordered the May 24th motion to dismiss dropped [15], in light of the July 1st motion to stay.

12/9/2012 - In a minute order on the docket on January 10, 2012, the court indicated that they had previously granted  a second order to stay [16] the proceedings on December 9, 2011, effective until June 9, 2012.

12/13/2011 - The attorney for Hanson sent a letter to the court [17] asking the court to reschedule hearings on his earlier motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment.

8/6/2012 - Hanson filed a renewed motion to dismiss [18] for failure to bring the case to trial.

8/7/2012 - The court granted the motion to dismiss [19] for failure to bring the case to trial within five years, dismissing the entire case.