Danna and Richard Goldhaber sued Charles Kohlenberg for defamation in New Jersey state court after Kohlenberg allegedly posted derogatory comments about them on an Internet newsgroup devoted to cruises and cruise ships. Kohlenberg did not appear in the New Jersey action because a California lawyer advised him that New Jersey did not have personal jurisdiction over him. The Goldhabers obtained a default judgment from the New Jersey court, which awarded them $2,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages.

Kohlenberg then hired a New Jersey attorney and filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, arguing that New Jersey lacked personal jurisdiction over him and that he had a reasonable excuse for failing to appear in the New Jersey action. The trial court denied his motion, and he appealed.

The New Jersey appeals court upheld personal jurisdiction over Kohlenberg, finding that he had targeted his comments at New Jersey. Specifically, the court noted that Kohlenberg knew that the Goldhabers resided in New Jersey and that he knew the municipality in which they resided and made specific disparaging references to that municipality. It also noted that he made certain postings in response to the Goldhabers' replies to his comments, referred to the Goldhabers' neighbors in their apartment complex, and posted their address. The appeals court vacated the default judgment against Kohlenberg, however, reasoning that his failure to appear was "excusable neglect" because he relied on the advice of counsel. See generally, Goldhaber v. Kohlenberg, 928 A.2d 948 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007).

The CMLP has not been able to determine what happened after the case returned to the trial court.

UPDATE

9/13/2007 - An answer to the complaint is filed. 

12/6/2008- The calculated end date of discovery. 

North Carolina resident Jack Dailey filed a defamation suit against Donald Popma after Popma allegedly criticized him in Internet postings. According to court documents, Dailey claimed that Popma and co-defendant R. W. Beavers accused him of being a crook, a liar, and the "equivalent" of a child molester, among other things.

Popma, a Georgia resident, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the North Carolina state court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. He stated that he had resided in North Carolina until July 2005, but had no contact with the state after that. Popma noted that he wrote the disputed postings after leaving the state. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.

On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed. The court rejected Dailey's argument that the postings' effects in North Carolina were sufficient to confer jurisdiction under the Calder "effects" test.  See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). The court reasoned that such a standard would eliminate the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction from all cases involving defamation on the Internet. Instead, the court held that a plaintiff must show that the defendant had an "intent to target" the forum state in order to be sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction.

The case against Beavers appears to be still pending.

Production company Vision Media TV (VMT) sued blogger Leslie Richard after she accused the company of scamming small businesses in her blog and on an Internet forum. VMT's complaint asked for $20 million in damages, alleging claims of defamation, tortious interference with business relationships, and trade libel.

Richard, owner of "green" fashion company The Oko Box, criticized VMT in the The Oko Box blog and Co-OP America's Green Business Network Lounge. According to the complaint, Richard's posts said that VMT representatives had offered to interview her for an educational television program on eco-fashion. Richard said the representatives claimed the program was part of an evironmental series featuring former "20/20" anchor Hugh Downs. After further discussions, VMT asked Richard to pay VMT $22,900 in production costs and $3,000 for airfare in order to appear on the program. Richard then allegedly wrote postings on her blog and Co-Op America calling VMT a scam and accusing it of taking advantage of small businesses. Richard also reported VMT to the Better Business Bureau.

VMT filed suit in a Florida federal court in July 2008. Richard, a North Carolina citizen, moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion also sought, in the alternative, to transfer the case to federal court in North Carolina. Richard argued that the Florida court's exercise of jurisdiction over her would violate standards of "fair play and substantial justice" because Richard could not afford to appear in a Florida court and could not travel in any case because of a medical condition. Richard filed an affadavit from her doctor stating that she was medically unfit to travel.

On October 09, 2008, VMT voluntarily dismissed the complaint with prejudice. In return, Richard removed the posts regarding VMT from her blog.

Jan Kruska sued several anti-pedophile organizations, including Perverted Justice Foundation, Inc. ("PJFI"), and individuals affliliated with those organizations, as well as domain registrar GoDaddy.com and social networking site MySpace.com, after the organizations accused Kruska of being a predator, a pedophile, and pro-pedophile on various websites, including JanKruska.com and JanKruska.net. Kruska sued for defamation, copyright infringement, cyberstalking and harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") in Arizona federal court.

In August 2007, self-described journalist Kruska began to receive what she described as "venomous" emails after she criticized the overbreadth of anti-pedophile laws. Soon after, the Absolute Zero United blog and PJFI's Wikisposure and Corporate Sex Offender websites posted accusations that Kruska was a convicted child molester and a pedophile, according to the complaint. The defendants allegedly posted similar accusations on MySpace.com, as well as on websitesJanKruska.com and JanKruska.net, both of which were registered byFilmax.com through GoDaddy.com. Some of the websites also allegedly posted personal information about Kruska, including her address, and photographs of Kruska that she says are copyrighted. In addition, Barbara Ochoa, aka Petra Luna, allegedly organized a protest targeting publishers of Kruska's writing, which Kruska said resulted in her articles being taken down. Further, Ochoa allegedly emailed Kruska, demanding Kruska remove her "entire web presence" or else face a "full scale activist attack" against her.

Kruska filed her complaint in January 2008. It sought damages and a preliminary injunction, barring thedefendants from "disseminating claims that [Kruska] is a 'Predator', 'Child Molester', 'Child Abuser', 'Pedophile', and 'Pro-Pedophile' bypostings on the internet, mass mailings, e-mails to friends, relatives,employers, business associates, among others; or otherwise by any othermeans making such suggestions."

In response, GoDaddy.com, Ochoa, and PJFI all moved to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds. In April 2008, Kruska voluntarily dropped her claims against MySpace.com. In June 2008, the court granted Ochoa's motion to dismiss, but gave leave to Kruska to amend her complaint against Ochoa, which she did. In July 2008, the court granted GoDaddy.com's motion to dismiss on the ground that CDA 230 precluded liability. The court also seems to have dismissed trademark claims against GoDaddy on CDA 230 grounds, which Eric Goldman notes is unusual.

Update

6/12/2009 - The court denied  Butler's new motion for summary judgment pending discovery.

8/7/2009 - Kruska moved for summary judgment on her copyright infringement claims against Von Erck and PJF.  She claimed any arguments for fair use failed as a matter of law.

8/28/2009 - Von Erck and PJF answered Kruska's complaint with affirmative defenses including a First Amendment defense, fair use, lack of damages, and a lack of personal jurisdiction.

9/22/2009 - The court denied Brocious' motion to dismiss Kruska's amended complaint.  

10/13/2009 - The court denied Kruska's motion for summary judgment on her copyright claims pending discovery.

11/18/2010 - Court issued order granting in part and denying in part Christopher Brocious' Motion to Dismiss and denying Brocious' Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Montana Holdings, a resort developer located in the Bahamas, filed a John Doe lawsuit in Arizona state court against the anonymous operator of the website www.resortbuyerbeware.com. The website allegedly contained false and defamatory statements about a Montana Holdings resort project and the people involved in developing it. After filing suit, Montana Holdings subpoenaed the website's domain registrar, Domains By Proxy, Inc., and its web hosting service, GoDaddy.com, Inc., both Arizona corporations. The subpoenas sought identifying information for the website operator and other information about the website.

Doe appeared in the action and moved to dismiss the complaint and to quash the subpoenas. The Arizona court granted both of Doe's motions, holding that it did not have personal jurisdiction over him/her. The court reasoned that, even though Domains By Proxy and GoDaddy.com were Arizona corporations, the website operator's commercial relationships with them were not sufficient to create the minimum contacts necessary for personal jurisdiction over Doe, who was not an Arizona resident.

John Carr is the former past president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA). Carr operates a blog, The Main Bang, on which he often criticizes the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In two blog posts in July 2007, Carr wrote about an FAA employee who committed suicide and detailed the actions of the employee's supervisor, John Gilding.

On September 11, 2007, Gilding commenced a lawsuit against Carr, claiming that Carr defamed him and placed him in a false light. Gilding further claims that Carr's blog falsely accused Gilding of "lying under oath in an administrative hearing" and "harrassing and intimidating a subordinate CPC to death." The complaint outlines several other statements that plaintiff alleges Carr "falsely and maliciously" made on his blog. The complaint requests relief in the form of general and punitive damages.

On October 31, 2007, Carr filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting that Arizona state courts do not have jurisdiction over him because he is a resident of Ohio and has no contacts or business with Arizona. Carr later filed motions for summary judgment based upon defenses of truth, opinion, and absence of actual malice. On April 25, 2008, the court denied Carr's motion to dismiss.

Update:

10/27/08 - Gilding filed a Third Amended Complaint that added NATCA as a defendant.

11/19/08 - The case was removed to the US District Court for the District of Arizona.

11/25/08 - NATCA filed a motion to dismiss. Gilding opposed.

04/07/09 - The court  granted Gilding's motion to remand back to state court and denied NATCA's motion to dismiss.

04/20/09 - The court granted Gilding's motion to  appoint a Special Master to referee the discovery process.

04/23/09 - NATCA filed a notice of intent to appeal to the Ninth Circuit the decision to remand. Other defendants file similar notices. 

04/24/09 - Gilding requested an award of attorney's fees. 

05/14/09 - Gilding moved to dismiss NATCA's appeal.

06/02/09 - Guilding moved for a subpoena to be issued to obtain FAA investigation records regarding  defendants Bob Marks and Jerry Johnston.

06/05/09 - The court denied Gilding's motion for an award of attorney's fees (originally made 4/24/09 and supplemented 5/21/09).

06/08/09 - NATCA moved to stay proceedings pending its appeal to the Ninth Circuit. 

06/11/09 - Gilding submitted a brief opposing NATCA's appeal.

06/12/09 - Guilding opposed NATCA motion to stay. 

On November 1, 2007, Internet Solutions, a company that runs a number of employment recruiting and Internet advertising businesses, including VeriResume, sued blogger Tabatha Marshall in federal court in Florida.

Marshall runs a blog and website at www.tabathamarshall.com, on which she writes about suspicious online job solicitations and so-called "phishing" practices. Part of her site consists of the "PhishBucket," a "directory of companies/individuals suspected of targeting job seekers with deceptive offers." Included in the PhishBucket is an entry for "VeriResume (Internet Solutions)," which bears the statement "Pending Investigation Phisher" at the top-right of the page. The entry also contains physical and web addresses for the company, links to posts about it (internal and external), and names of affiliated companies. The PhishBucket also includes entries for other companies operated by Internet Solutions, including Ask America, Scout 2007, Too Spoiled, and USA Voice.

Marshall's site also contains articles relating to her research and views about certain companies and their online job solicitations. Among these is a post entitled "Something's VeriRotten with VeriResume." In this post, Marshall excerpts a sample email from VeriResume soliciting job applications, criticizes the company's position on resume fraud, and links to other sites (like the Better Business Bureau) with information about VeriResume and Internet Solutions. She invites readers to "[c]heck out the research and YOU decide if you want to give them your info."

Several users submitted comments to the post that were critical of VeriResume. One user, who claimed to be a company employee, alleged that the company engages in a "bait-and-switch" routine after applicants submit their information, according to documents attached to the complaint. In an update to her original post, Marshall summarized these user's comments and expounded on the situation.

Starting on October 30, 2007, a representative of VeriResume (or Internet Solutions -- the record is not clear on this point) contacted Marshall via email, claiming that information about VeriResume and other companies posted on Marshall's website was incorrect and asking her to remove it. According to Marshall, the company representative also contacted her landlord, claiming that Marshall was operating a business in her house, a claim that Marshall disputes. On October 31, 2007, one day before filing suit, counsel representing VeriResume and ten other Internet Solutions-affiliated companies sent a cease-and-desist letter to Marshall via email. (For more information on the emails and letter, please see the CMLP database entry, VeriResume v. Marshall (Email)).

Internet Solutions's complaint includes claims for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and injurious falsehood (trade libel). It alleges that Marshall has "author[ed], post[ed], and publish[ed]" statements claiming that Internet Solutions engages in "phishing," "scams," and other criminal and fraudulent conduct. It requests compensatory and punitive damages, and an injunction requiring Marshall to remove the allegedly defamatory posts and prohibiting her from making future defamatory statements about the company.

Marshall was served with the complaint on November 3, and she has 20 days to respond. Marshall maintains that she merely posts her opinions, publicly available information, and third-party comments and asks her readers to draw their own conclusions. She is seeking legal assistance in this matter.

Update:

4/8/2008 - The court dismissed the complaint, holding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Marshall.

4/24/08 - Internet Solutions indicated to Marshall that it intends to file an appeal and commence another lawsuit in Washington state.

04/29/08 - Internet Solutions filed a notice that it has appealed the dismissal to the 11th Circuit.

06/06/2008 - Internet Solutions filed its appellate brief with the 11th Circuit.

07/16/2008 - Marshall filed her appellate brief with the 11th Circuit.

02/10/2009 - The 11th Circuit certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court: "Does posting allegedly defamatory stories and comments about a company with its principal place of business in Florida on a non-commercial website owned and operated by a nonresident with no other connections to Florida constitute a commission of a tortious act within Florida for purposes of Fla. Stat. section 48.193(1)(b)?"

03/03/2010 - Florida Supreme Court heard oral argument on the certified question.

06/17/2010 - Florida Supreme Court issued its decision on the certified question:

We answer the rephrased certified question in the affirmative. We conclude that posting defamatory material on a website alone does not constitute the commission of a tortious act within Florida for purposes of section 48.193(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Rather, the material posted on the website about a Florida resident must not only be accessible in Florida, but also be accessed in Florida in order to constitute the commission of the tortious act of defamation within Florida under section 48.193(1)(b). 

9/30/2010 - District Court dismissed case based on lack of personal jurisdiction.

Sierra Corporate Design ("Sierra"), a self-described "specialized Internet service provider and web hosting provider," sued Ed Falk, an anti-spam campaigner and operator of the "Spam Tracking Page," and David Ritz, a member of one of Falk's Usenet groups, in North Dakota state court for violations of North Dakota's computer crime statute (N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-06.1-08) and trespass to chattels.

The complaint alleged that Ritz hacked servers owned by Sierra, gathered confidential information (in the form of "internal network configurations and NIP addresses for Sierra's network" and "private domain name/IP address/company information"), and published that information on the Internet. It alleged that Falk was aware of Ritz's unauthorized access to Sierra's servers and assisted in publishing Sierra's information by posting a link to Ritz's announcement on Usenet that itself linked to Ritz's website, where Sierra's information appeared.

In October 2006, the North Dakota court held that it did not have jurisdiction over Falk, dismissed the lawsuit against him, and vacated a default judgment that previously had been entered against him. (This case is related to Jerry Reynold's defamation suit against Falk, which is addressed in another CMLP database entry.)

Update:

1/11/2008 - After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of Sierra, finding that Ritz had committed trespass to chattels by accessing its computers without authorization and with malicious intent. The court awarded Sierra $2,930 in actual damages and $50,000 in exemplary damages, and fined Ritz $10,000 for violating a court order. The court permanently enjoined Ritz from accessing Sierra's computers. The court held that Sierra also was entitled to attorneys' fees and ordered Sierra to submit an application for fees within thirty days.

On February 21, 2006, Austrian politician Peter Pilz posted comments on his (Austrian) website about Glock pistols making their way to the black market in Turkey. Der Standard, a German-language newspaper, reported on Pilz's statements in its print and online editions.

On April 6, 2006, Glock sued Pilz, Der Standard, and a number of co-defendants for defamation in Indiana state court. Glock read Pilz's comments as accusing it of conspiring with Kiesler Police Supply, a company based in Indiana, to sell more pistols in Iraq than were necessary in order to supply a black market in Turkey. (The district court noted in its order dismissing the action that a more plausible reading of the article is that the Austrian government was to blame for not better managing the supply of Austrian pistols.)

On May 9, 2006, Bronner Online AG and Der Standard removed the lawsuit to federal court. Glock settled with Sperlich, Pickl-Herk, and Freiler in June 2006.

In March 2007, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana decided the defendants motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It concluded that to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Austrian defendants would violate the Due Process Clause. Summing up the situation well, the court wrote:

As an aside on the international context, the court notes how extraordinary and problematic finding personal jurisdiction in this situation would be. Pilz is a member of the Austrian Parliament writing about what is arguably a matter of policy of the Austrian government; Der Standard is a newspaper that reported on Pilz's views. Today almost everything written down ends up on the internet in one form or another. Does the Due Process Clause allow the internet to transform American courts into worldwide speech regulators every time an American entity gets mentioned? That is doubtful, but essentially what Plaintiff argues.

The court dismissed the action with respect to all the remaining defendants.