False Light

Matteo v. Rubin

Date: 

05/07/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Howard Rubin

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Case Number: 

1:07-cv-02536

Legal Counsel: 

Fred Rabinowitz (Schaffner, Rabinowitz & Feinartz)

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Settled (total)

Description: 

Professional photographer Steven Matteo sued Howard Rubin for defamation, copyright infringement, false light invasion of privacy, and interference with prospective economic advantage in Illinois federal court after Rubin posted criticism online of Matteo's photographs of the wedding of Rubin's daughter.  Rubin allegedly posted Matteo's photos, which Rubin said exemplified the problems with Matteo's work, and tried to dissuade other couples from hiring Matteo.

Rubin filed a motion to dismiss Matteo's case for failure to state a claim.  Rubin argued that Matteo failed to show copyright infringement because Rubin had permission to republish the photographs from his wife, who commissioned Matteo and had Matteo's permission to republish them.  In addition, Rubin said that Matteo had not shown he suffered financially from the alleged infringement or from the alleged interference.  Rubin argued that the defamation and false light claims were deficient because he had only stated his opinion about his personal dealings with Matteo. The court denied Rubin's motion, finding none of these arguments sufficient to justify dismissal.

The parties settled in April 2008.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Complaint not available in PACER due to its inclusion of photos (according to substitute 1-page doc on PACER).  Apparently only available through clerk's office.  Both Rubin's motion to dismiss and Rubin's answer include the original complaint, however.  (AAB)

Priority: 

1-High

McVea v. Crisp

Date: 

04/20/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

James Crisp

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

Case Number: 

5:07-cv-00353 (trial); 08-50027 (appeal)

Legal Counsel: 

William W. Ogden (Ogden Gibson Broocks & Longoria)

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Description: 

Denise McVea, a journalist and author, sued Alamo historian James Crisp in Texas federal court for defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after Crisp criticized McVea's research and book about in forum posts on a prominent Alamo history website, www.thealamofilm.com. 

According to plaintiff's complaint, Crisp made the following allegedly defamatory statements:

  • "when confronted by logical contraditions in her argument, Plaintiff simply denies them."
  • "I was willing to give her research the benefit of the dbout, but ultimately unwilling to lend my support to a work which stretched both the evidence and credulity, as her book clearly does."
  • "On the other hand, Dunn, after years of archival research carried out in his spare time, has now brought forth a succinct article which, using passport applications, census data, newspaper accounts, and ships' passenger lists, makes a rock-solid case that Denise's provocative and interesting theory is wrong -- just flat wrong."
  • "McVea, I have discovered -- in large part thanks to this forum -- is at her nastiest when her arguments are at their weakest -- and she is plenty nasty just now."
  • "The documents which Dunn has used -- documents either ignored, not found, or suppressed by Denise McVea -- are in the public domain, and available for anyone to check."
  • "Please read very carefully any 'rebuttal' submitted by Ms. McVea, and check her references with equal care.  That's what I did when I found that her arguments in previous submissions -- arguments based on prodigious and ingenious archival research -- nevertheless simply did not match the documentary evidence." 

Crisp moved to dismiss McVea's claims due to the court's lack of personal jurisdiction over Crisp and McVea's failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  The court ruled that Crisp was subject to Texas's personal jurisdiction, because Crisp's "comments . . . aimed at a Texas resident and directed to a predominately Texas audience on a website devoted to Texas history" established sufficient contacts with the state.

But the court granted Crisp's motion to dismiss due to failure to state a claim.  The court ruled that given the context of the online forum and the nature of the discussion, the disputed comments could not be reasonably found to have a defamatory meaning, but rather were protected expressions of opinion.

McVea appealed the court's ruling.  On Aug. 27, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as frivolous.  The court held that "a person of ordinary intelligence would not find Crisp's words reasonably capable of defamatory meaning."

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

DSA Editing

Priority: 

1-High

Merkey v. Does

Date: 

06/22/2005

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Bruce Perens, aka "OSRM"; Pamela Jones, aka "Groklaw.com"; Grendel, aka "Pagansavage.com"; Matt Merkey and Brandon Suit, aka "Merkey.net"; John Sage, aka "Finchhaven.com"; Jeff Causey and Mrbuttle, aka "ip-wars.net"; slashdot.org; Alan Petrofsky, aka

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the District of Utah

Case Number: 

2:05-cv-00521

Legal Counsel: 

Pro se (Alan Petrofsky)

Publication Medium: 

Website
Wiki

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Material Removed
Withdrawn

Description: 

Jeff Merkey, a former employee of Novell, sued the operators of several websites with ties to the open source community, including legal news site groklaw.com, technology news site slashdot.org, and intellectual property site ip-wars.net, on claims including defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference, and invasion of privacy, after the various websites reported on Novell's trade secrets lawsuit against Merkey. Merkey alleged that the defendants worked in concert to damage his reputation and repeatedly threatened to terrorize and murder him and his family.

When Merkey's complaint was originally filed, it included an unredacted copy of the confidential settlement between Merkey and Novell as Exhibit 2.  The court subsequently ordered that Exhibit 2 be redacted from the publicly available record. Then, over the course of several motions, Merkey withdrew his claims against all of the defendants.

Before the court redacted Exhibit 2, Al Petrofsky, a third party not named in the original case, posted a copy of the complaint, including Exhibit 2, to scofacts.org.  Exhibit 2 was also posted to Wikipedia.org before redaction.  Merkey filed a motion for an order to show cause why Petrofsky should not be sanctioned for violating the court's order sealing Exhibit 2. Merkey also sent a notice to Wikipedia alerting it to the court's order.  Merkey then moved to reopen the case for enforcement of the redaction against Petrofsky, which the court granted. Merkey then filed a second amended complaint and served Petrofsky.

After a month without a response from Petrofsky, Merkey moved for entry of a default judgment against him.  The magistrate judge filed a report on Merkey's motions to the court, recommending that the entry of default judgment be granted, Petrofsky be ordered to remove Exhibit 2 from scofacts.org, and Merkey be allowed to amend his complaint against Petrofsky to include damages.  In response, Petrofsky filed an objection, challenging the court's jurisdiction over him because Merkey's prior claims against him had been dismissed. 

The court rejected Petrofsky's argument, saying that it still retained jurisdiction over the existing issue.  The court also granted Merkey's motion for default judgment and ordered that Exhibit 2 be removed from scofacts.org.  But the court noted that while Petrofsky should not make Exhibit 2 available on the website, he was not bound by the previous court order, as "the issue of whether the sealing order applies to third parties has not been addressed on the merits."  As a result, the court ruled that Petrofsky should not be held liable for any damages that resulted, and if Petrofsky did not remove Exhibit 2, Merkey would have to file a new case and claim in order to seek damages.  Thus, the court closed the case, and ordered each party to pay its own attorney's fees and costs.

Petrofsky removed Exhibit 2 from scofacts.org in response to the court's order.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

SB editing

Priority: 

1-High

Novak v. Active Window Productions

Date: 

05/30/2001

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Active Window Productions, Inc.; Mark Rosenstein; Cynthia S. Powers; Dan Resler; Jared Weinberger; Sean Carney; Thomas Barr; John Doe; Mary Roe; Robert Hudson

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Case Number: 

2:01-cv-03566

Verdict or Settlement Amount: 

$4,150.00

Legal Counsel: 

Robert L. Folks, Cynthia A. Kouril (Robert L. Folks & Associates, LLP) (for Active Window Productions and Mark Rosenstein); Hilary B. Miller (for Dan Resler); Pro se (for Cynthia S. Powers)

Publication Medium: 

Email

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Material Removed
Settled (partial)

Description: 

Pet shop owner Robert Novak, operator of Petswarehouse.com, sued Active Window Productions ("AWP"), host of the Aquatic Plants Digest ("APD"), a forum and email list for aquatic plant gardeners and hobbyists, and several individuals who criticized Pets Warehouse.  Novak added further claims against the individuals after they organized to protest Novak's lawsuit.  Novak sued in New York federal court on claims of cybersquatting, defamation, trademark dilution and infringement, trade libel, tortious interference with business, false light, unfair competition, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

According to court documents, Dan Resler, a computer scientist, posted a message in May 2001 that warned: "Thinking of buying plants from Pet Warehouse? Don't." He went on to detail his gripes about the company's customer service, based on what he said was a delayed shipment of plants he'd ordered.  Resler later followed up with this post amending his previous warning: "to clarify: Pet Warehouse OK, Pets Warehouse NOT." 

Other members of the list soon added their own complaints, including the following alleged statements recounted in the plaintiff's complaint:

  • [a]s a source for purchasing plants, they do not have a good reputation (Defendant Jared Weinberger - May 21, 2001)
  • But you don’t have to take my word as the last word on their horrible service. Feeling lucky? Go ahead - try them out yourselves. After all, it’s only your time and money, right? (Defendant Dan Resler - May 18, 2001)
  • They claim to fill 90% of the orders. Well I can tell everyone it’s more like 20%. Or less. If at all. (Defendant Thomas Barr - May 17, 2001)
  • Given the continual flow of negative comments about PetSwarehouse that I’ve read for nearly two years on this list, I’ve decided to add a warning (and figure this is better than simply removing them. (Defendant Weinberger - May 18, 2001)
  • Remember petSWEARhouse, buy their plants and you’ll be swearing! (May 22, 2001)
  • I believe they call that deceptive advertising. Or bait-and-switch. Take your pick. (Defendant Sean Carney - May 16, 2001)

After seeing the criticism, Novak filed suit against the posters for libel and defamation seeking damages of $1 million, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress seeking damages of $15 million.

The defendants began to organize against the lawsuit via online forums and the APD list, and sought donations to their legal defense fund.  In organizing and promoting their legal defense, the defendants referenced Pets Warehouse.  In response, Novak brought additional claims against the defendants, including trademark violations and business torts. 

As a result, several defendants settled with Novak in December 2001 and agreed to remove any posts or messages "concerning or referring to" Novak. According to the "stipulation of settlement" posted on the defendants' information site, Dan Resler also agreed to pay $4,150.

In 2007, Novak amended his complaint against AWP, AWP's editor Mark Rosenstein, and AWP poster Robert Hudson. AWP and  Mark Rosenstein answered, denying Novak's claims and invoking section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as granting them immunity from any defamation or infringement stemming from APD posters' comments. They also brought counterclaims against Novak for violations of New York Civil Rights Law.

Update:

8/7/2008 - Court ordered that a status conference will be held in Courtroom 820 of the Federal Courthouse in Central Islip on September 5, 2008 at 11:30 a.m 

9/19/2008 - Status conference held. Court ordered a pretrial conference for May 29, 2009.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

PACER doesn't have most of the documents from the case's first few years. Probably worth digging them up somehow. {MCS}

Priority: 

1-High

Understanding Your Legal Risks When You Blog or Publish Online

Over the next few weeks I'll be posting about various topics we cover in the CMLP's Citizen Media Legal Guide.  If you would like to read any of the previous "highlights" from the guide, you can find them here

Subject Area: 

Deep Blue Marine v. Krajewski

Date: 

05/20/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Edward Krajewski; John Does 1 - 10

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the District of Utah

Case Number: 

2:08-cv-00405-TC

Legal Counsel: 

Pro se

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)
Injunction Issued

Description: 

Deep Blue Marine, its CEO Wilf Blum, and Alexander Lindale LLC sued former Deep Blue operations manager Edward Krajewski after Krajewski criticized the plaintiffs and allegedly disclosed Deep Blue proprietary information on several online investor forums. The plaintiffs sought an injunction in Utah federal court against Krajewski to prevent him from posting any further criticism or materials. They also brought claims for defamation, false light, intentional interference with economic advantage, breach of contract (including publication of trade secrets), and breach of convenant of good faith.

In May 2008, Deep Blue moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Krajewski. The court decided the motion ex parte after satisfying itself that Krajewski had received notice of the hearing. It granted the motion, issuing an order prohibiting Krajewski from

  1. publishing statements concerning trade secrets, confidential, and/or proprietary information of Deep Blue . . . , including but not limited to methods, processes, discussions, plans, techniques, equipment, locations, discoveries, recovered materials, research projects, sources of supplies, financial data and marketing, contract amounts and/or salaries, corporate income, disbursements, expenditures, and/or merchandising systems or plans of Deep Blue; and

  2. publishing false and/or defamatory statements regarding Deep Blue Marine, Wilf Blum, and/or Alexander Lindale, and/or their agents, employees or affiliates.

In July 2008, Krajewski, acting pro se, filed a motion for an extension of time to file a brief. He also submitted an affidavit explaining that he lacked sufficient financial resources to litigate the case in Utah and requesting that the court transfer the case to Pennsylvania, his home state. On July 22, the court denied the motion for an extension of time to file a brief, noting that Krajewski did not identify what motion he would be addressing and that no motions were currently pending. The court added that Krajewski could inititiate a motion and file a brief in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules.

Update:

1/15/2009 - Action dismissed without prejudice subject to parties' settlement agreement  

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Priority: 

1-High

Johnson v. Barras

Date: 

03/01/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Jonetta Rose Barras; Talk Media Communications LLC; DC Watch; Dorothy A. Brizill; Gary Imhoff; The District of Columbia

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization
Government
Intermediary

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

District of Columbia Superior Court

Case Number: 

2007 CA 001600 B

Legal Counsel: 

Daniel Z. Herbst, A. Scott Bolden, Anthony E. DiResta (for Barras and Talk Media); Arthur B. Spitzer (ACLU-NCA) and Marcia Hoffman (Electronic Frontier Foundation) (for Dorothy Brizill, Gary Imhoff, and DCWatch); Eden Miller, Edward Taptich (for Dist

Publication Medium: 

Email
Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (partial)
Settled (partial)
Withdrawn

Description: 

Roslyn Johnson, former Deputy Director of the D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation, sued Jonetta Rose Barras, Talk Media Communications, government watchdog website DCWatch, two DCWatch executives, and The District of Columbia, after DC Watch published in its electronic newsletter and on its website articles submitted by Barras, a local political reporter. Barras's articles, which were posted also on her personal website JR Barras.com, looked at alleged cronymism in the hiring practices of the Department and stated that Johnson had inflated her resume in order to secure her position. See Cmplt. ¶¶ 70-75 . Johnson filed her claims for defamation, false light, intentional interference with contract, negligence, and violations of the District of Columbia's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in D.C. Superior Court.

DCWatch and its two executives, Dorothy Brizill and Gary Imhoff, moved to dismiss Johnson's claims against them, arguing that DCWatch could not be found liable for Barras's article because DCWatch was protected from liability for publishing third-party content under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230). They also argued that they could only be held liable if Barras' accusations were not substantially true and cited a report by the D.C. Inspector General that found Johnson had inflated her resume.

In addition, Barras moved for judgment on the pleadings on grounds that her accusations were substantially true, and the District of Columbia moved to dismiss the claims against it, arguing that the D.C. FOIA did not create a claim on which Johnson could sue.

The court denied DCWatch's motion initially and granted Johnson limited discovery to ascertain whether Barras was an agent of DCWatch, which would allow Johnson to overcome DCWatch's CDA 230 immunity. The court also denied Barras's and the District's motions, ruling that it would let Johnson investigate her claims in discovery.

Johnson failed to uncover evidence of a relationship between DCWatch and Barras that would sustain her claims against the DCWatch defendants, and she voluntarily withdrew her claims against them in February 2008.

Update:

01/29/09 - Case dismissed with prejudice as to Barras and Talk Media Communications; remaining claims settled. 

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Updated 2/12/09 - VAF

Priority: 

1-High

Washington: False Light

Note: This page covers information specific to Washington. For general information concerning false light see the general False Light section of this guide.

Washington courts have not explicitly recognized the tort of "false light." However, unlike several other states, Washington has not explicitly rejected the tort of false light either.

Virginia: False Light

Note: This page covers information specific to Virginia. For general information concerning false light see the general False Light section of this guide. 

The tort of "false light" is not recognized in Virginia; you cannot sue or be sued on such a claim. See WJLA-TV v. Levin, 564 S.E.2d 383, 395 n.5 (Va. 2000). 

Texas: False Light

Note: This page covers information specific to Texas. For general information concerning false light see the general False Light section of this guide. 

The tort of "false light" is not recognized in Texas; you cannot sue or be sued on such a claim. See Cain v. Hearst Corp., 878 S.W.2d 577, 579-80 (Tex. 1994).

 

Pennsylvania: False Light

Note: This page covers information specific to Pennsylvania. For general information concerning false light see the general False Light section of this guide.

Pennsylvania recognizes the tort of "false light." Plaintiffs can sue for false light when false information is spread about them that is offensive. The specific things a plaintiff must prove are listed below under Elements of a False Light Claim.

North Carolina: False Light

Note: This page covers information specific to North Carolina. For general information concerning false light see the general False Light section of this guide. 

The tort of "false light" is not recognized in North Carolina; you cannot sue or be sued on such a claim. See Renwick v. News & Observer, 312 S.E.2d 405 (N.C. 1984).

 

New York: False Light

Note: This page covers information specific to New York. For general information concerning false light see the general False Light section of this guide.

The tort of "false light" is not recognized in New York; you cannot sue or be sued on such a claim. See, e.g., Costanza v. Seinfeld, 27 Media L. Rep. 2177 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1999), aff'd, 719 N.Y.S.2d 29 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001); Howell v. New York Post Co., 21 Media L. Rep. 1273 (N.Y. 1993).

 

New Jersey: False Light

Note: This page covers information specific to New Jersey. For general information concerning false light see the general False Light section of this guide. 

New Jersey recognizes the tort of "false light." Plaintiffs can sue for "false light" when false information is spread about them that is false and offensive. The specific things a plaintiff must prove are listed below under "Elements of a False Light Claim."

Michigan: False Light

Note: This page covers information specific to Michigan. For general information concerning false light see the general False Light section of this guide. 

Michigan recognizes the tort of "false light." Plaintiffs can sue for false light when false information is spread about them that is humiliating. The specific things a plaintiff must prove are listed below under "Elements of a False Light Claim."

Massachusetts: False Light

Note: This page covers information specific to Massachusetts. For general information concerning false light see the general False Light section of this guide. 

Massachusetts courts do not recognize a claim for false light.  See ELM Medical Lab, Inc. v. RKO Gen., Inc., 532 N.E.2d 675, 681 (Mass. 1989); Jones v. Taibbi, 512 N.E.2d 260, 270 (Mass. 1987); Brown v. Hearst Corp., 54 F.3d 21, 27 (1st Cir. 1995).

Indiana: False Light

Note: This page covers information specific to Indiana. For general information concerning false light see the general False Light section of this guide. 

Indiana recognizes the tort of "false light." Plaintiffs can sue for false light in certain circumstances when false information about them has been spread to others. Because Indiana courts have not heard many cases raising false light, it is unclear when exactly someone can sue for being placed in a false light.

Illinois: False Light

Note: This page covers information specific to Illinois. For general information concerning false light see the general False Light section of this guide.

Illinois recognizes the tort of "false light." A person can sue for false light when a false and offensive statement is made about them to the public and causes them distress. The specific things a plaintiff must prove are listed below under "Elements of a False Light Claim."

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - False Light