False Light

Georgia: False Light

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

Georgia recognizes the tort of "false light."  Plaintiffs can sue for false light when false information is spread about them that depicts them in an untruthful and highly offensive manner. The specific things a plaintiff must prove to establish false light are listed below under "Elements of a False Light Claim."

State Law: False Light

State laws vary with regard to false light suits. Consult the state sections listed below to determine whether your state recognizes false light and, if so, how it works in practice. (Note that the guide does not include every state at this time.)

District of Columbia: False Light

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

The District of Columbia recognizes the tort of "false light." Plaintiffs 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."

California: False Light

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

California recognizes "false light" claims. A person can sue for false light when something highly offensive is implied to be true about them that is actually false.

Marvin v. Shell

Date: 

04/25/2002

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Janice Shell, aka Janice456; John Doe I, aka Scion; John Doe II, aka Salemshexny

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: 

1:02-cv-02963

Legal Counsel: 

John Blim, Jay Edelson (Blim & Edelson) (terminated); pro se

Publication Medium: 

Email
Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Settled (total)

Description: 

Jay Marvin, a Chicago talk-radio host, sued Janice Shell and two John Does over comments the three defendants made about him on the Raging Bull finance forum and from email sent by Shell to Marvin's employer, complaining about his alleged harassment of her.  Marvin filed claims of defamation, false light, and tortious interference against the defendants in Illinois federal court in April 2002.

The court dismissed Marvin's original complaint due to Marvin's failure to show jurisdiction by establishing the citizenships of the John Does. Marvin then amended his complaint to focus solely on claims against Shell. Shell filed counterclaims alleging defamation based on comments that Marvin made about Shell on the Raging Bull forum.

In November 2002, Shell moved to dismiss, arguing that Marvin had failed to establish any of his claims. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing Marvin's claim of tortious interference, but retaining the defamation and false light claims. Also, at the court's prompting, Marvin formally dismissed claims against the John Doe defendants. In January 2004, the parties settled.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Note that Shell's answer and counter-complaint do not appear to have been uploaded to PACER.

Bradley v. Conner

Date: 

07/23/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Herbert Bennet Conner

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal
State

Court Name: 

Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

Case Number: 

2:07-cv-01347-DWA (W.D. Pa)

Legal Counsel: 

Dennis St. J. Mulvihill; Bruce E. Rende; Erin Wengryn

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Description: 

Kimball Bradley, an executive at Reunion Industries, Inc., a publicly traded manufacturing company, sued Herbert Conner, an attorney who previously represented Reunion, over posts Conner allegedly made on a Yahoo! Finance Message Board that Bradley believed defamed him and cast him in a false light.

According to allegations in the complaint and other filings in the case, beginning in August 2005 and continuing through March 2006, Conner, using the alias “pun2dex,” posted numerous messages on the Yahoo! Finance Message Board designated for Reunion. Bradley alleges that Connor posted the following statements:

  • On August 10, 2005, pun2dex stated: “As badly as this company is run, there is no shutdown. Richard Conway (of Lc Capital Masters) is in and will be heard. The company has fresh cash and is buying raw material. It will show an operating profit this quarter primarily due to the sales in China by its CPI sub. So long as the bond holders sit still, there could be some upside.”

  • On September 1, 2005: “[Reunion] operates with a lockbox. It has no choice but to pay down the Bank debt. The Bondholders are stuck. The Bank takes all the excess cash and leaves only enough to buy material for production. Leadership is lacking, but well paid anyway. Check the identity of majority ownership in relation to the CEO and COO. I do not know how the outside directors sleep. There is a large lawsuit looming if someone should have the energy to file it.”

  • On September 20, 2005: “Richard Conway is running Reunion. At last someone with an IQ. He paid hard cash. The banks have been backed off and RUN will report around 20 cents, if it so chooses in October, not from operations, but debt reduction. They can now buy raw steel and make product. The Oneida division will be sold and the cylinder and pressure vessel business will be advanced. Conway will have a $4.00 stock in 18 months.”

  • On September 21, 2005: “I have followed the company for a very long time and read the filings. The Board is becoming concerned since Worldcom, in light of Sarbox, and well they should. . . .Kimball Bradley [Plaintiff] is still called COO, C E Bradley is still CEO, but the latter is CEO in paycheck only, and will soon be resigning at the request of Mr. Conway. The only way out for [Reunion] is to do what Conway suggests. Look for him to buy the junk bonds, reduce and control the debt and spur the growth of the profitable divisions. Check LC Capital Masters and Lampe, Conway Fund Group. Run (sic) needs management with a higher IQ than club handicap, with Conway, they get one, even if K. Bradley stays in as COO or even moves to CEO. He will not be calling the shots, except on the Golf Course.”

  • On January 1, 2006: “. . .the story is all of failure since the young Bradley took over and will not stop until he is long gone. Until that day, this company and this stock will bounce a little, but is going nowhere.” On January 24, 2006: “If you are intent on paying salaries, you must sell something in the context of this company. Check the President, who is a member of the YPO. That means he was unable to be employed anywhere else, so his father made him president of this company so he could hang out with other young guys who were born on third base and think they hit a triple. This company is going nowhere. The next big thing will be a revolt of the bondholders or the banks. The shareholders will not be happy.”

  • On January 25, 2006: “Our leader will never consider stepping aside to allow someone with the drive and intellect to run the company, so long as he has no other job prospects and strong cash needs. Instead of figuring out a way to make the company profitable, he sells assets to keep his check coming in. Go to GHIN.COM in Pennsylvania for Kimball Bradley and you will quickly see where the energy of management is spent, and only a small fraction of the rounds are posted so as not to upset his father. What a waste. The bondholders would be well advised to call his bluff, take control and get someone in who will put the company right. There are only a few assets left to sell, and at Kimball’s age he will need to sell them all just to pay his caddies.”

  • On February 10, 2006: “The market cap on RUN is $9,500,000.00. Check what the company was worth when currect [sic] management took over. Even at that number you could not sell the stock and hold the current stock price. What a waste. How do those people sleep at night? Subtract the debt from a reasonable enterprise evaluation and you are below zero. A monkey could do better.”

  • On February 22, 2006: “There is a [sic] apparent disconnect between blind optimism and business sense. A manager should get out of his office and go to customers, visit the plants and find new markets, new products and new businesses to bring a company above the profit line. He does not refinance a sea of debt over a five year reign, sell the divisions that earn a profit, add no new ones, shrink the revenue and raise his own salary, while buying a stadium box for his personal use with company funds, leave the office by 3:00 pm every weekday, work no weekends or evenings and pine for a job that makes ‘real money.’ This guy is rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, and only on a part time basis at that, while he works on his golfing handicap. We write in the hope that the board will wakeup and find a real CEO. Will recognize that it has a duty to the shareholders and not to an incompetnat [sic] young boy who cannot find a job on his own. . . .At Worldcom each boardmember was required to pay 20% of his personal net worth to the shareholders because they ignored guys like me. It will happen again.”

  • On March 9, 2006: “This is just more rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic. K. Bradley probably thinks he did something meriting a huge bonus or perhaps a pay increase, but look at what has happened since he became COO. Straight down for revenues, profits and share price. I agree he probably can’t sleep at night, but he should still put in a full day, although with his ability, the company would do better without him. Still, Dad likes him, so he gets promoted, GO Figure. After all the comments about YPO, I did some research and have concluded that they are circle of jerks or a circle jerk. Our Boy fits right in.”

Based on these statements, Bradley asserted claims under Pennsylvania law for defamation, including defamation per se, and for false light.

In October 2007, Connor removed the case from Pennsylvania state court to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the claims were barred under Pennsylvania's one-year statute of limitations.

On November 29, 2007, the district court agreed and dismissed the lawsuit, rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the "discovery rule" should have tolled the statute of limitations.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

I assume appeal is still possible

No evidence of appeal as of 2/19/2009 - VAF

Ganjavi v. Smith

Date: 

08/03/2006

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Issuing Legal Threat: 

Reza Ganjavi

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Jeremy Smith; Cindy Smith; William Jennings; Todd Tipton; Deloitte Consulting LLC; Deloitte & Touche USA LLP; Deloitte & Touch Corporate Finance LLC

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Large Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Central District of California; United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Case Number: 

CV-058619 (California);1:06CV04189 (Illinois)

Legal Counsel: 

Daliah Saper

Publication Medium: 

Forum
Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Description: 

In 2006, Reza Ganjavi, a musician and record producer in the field of classical guitar, filed suit in federal court in California against several named and anonymous Internet posters.  Ganjavi alleged that the individual defendants posted negative comments about him on various websites and Usenet's classical guitar newsgroup and created websites mocking his website.  Ganjavi also alleged that the defendants fraudulently published text purporting to be his work and used his identity to make offensive and threatening statements, including threatening to kill a person, issuing racial slurs, and expressing sympathy for terrorists. 

In Ganjavi's suit in California, the court order dismissing the case without prejudice indicated that all defendants either were dropped from the case by the plaintiff or filed successful motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ganjavi then sued Jeremy and Cindy Smith, Todd Tipton, William Jennings, and Deloitte & Touche in federal court in Illinois over essentially the same facts. Ganjavi named Deloitte & Touche because the company employed Jeremy Smith and he was believed to have made some of the disputed comments from Deloitte's computers (Ganjavi later dropped the company from the suit).

Ganjavi's third amended complaint contained claims for violation of attribution and integrity rights under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 106A), "false presentation" in violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), false light, appropriation of name and likeness, libel, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, unfair competition, and other state law claims.

The defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit and for summary judgment on various grounds. In July 2007, the district court granted Jeremy Smith's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. With respect to the two federal claims, the court held (1) that Ganjavi's federal copyright claim under § 106A did not survive as a basis for federal jurisdiction because that section only applies to works of visual art under § 101 of the Copyright Act, which do not include electronic publications, and (2) that the ACPA claim did not survive because the complaint did not assert that the defendants had attempted to or intended to profit from the alleged wrongful conduct. The court further found that since Ganjavi had not established the jurisdictional threshold amount for the remaining state law claims, it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case.

According to Ganjavi's website, he had planned to refile in state court but reached a settlement agreement with the defendants before doing so. 

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Higher Balance Institute v. Signs of the Times

Date: 

02/25/2008

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Quantum Future Group, Inc; Quantum Future School; Signs of the Times; Laura Knight-Jadczyk

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the District of Oregon

Case Number: 

3:08-cv-00233

Legal Counsel: 

Walter Hansell; Stephen Kaus

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Dismissed (total)

Description: 

On March 13, 2008, Higher Balance Institute (HBI), which markets metaphysical products and education programs, filed a defamation lawsuit against the alternative news website Signs of the Times and its operators, the Quantum Future Group and Laura Knight-Jadczyk. Only Quantum Future Group has been served. HBI claims that employees of the Quantum Future Group posted defamatory statements about it on one of the website's forums. According to the complaint, these statements include allegedly false claims that HBI is a "front for pedophilia," that HBI is "conning the public," that meditation, as sold by HBI is an act of "falling into confluence with a psychopathic reality," and that HBI is a "cointelpro" organization. Cmplt. ¶23. (The Signs of the Times website uses the term "cointelpro" to refer to organizations that it claims perpetuate the ethos of a 1970s FBI counter intelligence program designed to quell domestic dissent.)

The complaint, filed in federal district court in Oregon, contains claims for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional interference with business relationships and prospective economic advantage. HBI seeks over $4 million in damages and an injunction. On April 25, 2008, Quantum Future Group moved to strike the complaint pursuant to Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute, Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.150.

Update:

4/25/2008 - Quantum Future Group filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and for lack of personal jurisdiction.

5/19/2008 - Quantum Future School, Signs of the Times, and Knight-Jadezyk filed special motions to strike the complaint under Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute and joined Quantum Future Group's motion to strike. 

12/18/2008 - The district court granted the defendants' motions to strike the complaint under Oregon's anti-SLAPP statute. The court's decision relied in part on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

06/18/2009- The court granted in part the defendants' motion for attorney's fees. The court found the request of over $135,000 to be excessive, and so awarded $51,500.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Source: User submission (both Contact form and in a blog comment); Google Blog Search

Status updated on 1/5/2009 (SB)

Updated 6/24/09 AVM - I added information about award of costs. 

Kono v. Meeker

Date: 

05/15/2003

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Lawrence Meeker; Carole Meeker

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Iowa District Court for Polk County; Court of Appeals of Iowa

Case Number: 

7-596 / 06-1554

Verdict or Settlement Amount: 

$500,000.00

Legal Counsel: 

Margaret Callahan

Publication Medium: 

Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Verdict (plaintiff)

Description: 

In May 2003, Dana Kono sued Lawrence and Carole Meeker in Iowa state court for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After an acrimonious business dispute between the Meekers and Kono over a botched exchange of antique mechanical devices, the Meekers published a page on their website called the "Dana Kono Watch page." According to the Court of Appeals decision in the litigation, the Meekers' webpage stated that Kono was an "admitted liar," said that Kono "has a problem with the truth, with facts, and it seems with alcohol," and made other statements accusing Kono of being a disreputable person. The Meekers also posted excerpts from their email communications with Kono.

Kono sued, arguing that the statements on the Meekers' site were false and defamatory. The case went to trial, and the jury awarded Kono $500,000, including $150,000 for defamation, $50,000 for invasion of privacy, $50,000 for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and $125,000 in punitive damages. The Meekers appealed, and the Court of Appeals of Iowa affirmed the jury verdict on all counts.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

Anthony Ciolli, former AutoAdmit Defendant, Sues Everyone

Breaking news from Above the Law: Anthony Ciolli, former defendant in the controversial AutoAdmit case, has filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court against the two plaintiffs in that case, their lawyers, ReputationDefender and one of its employees, and the shadowy "T14 Talent." He alleges wrongful initiation of civil proceedings, abuse of process, libel, slander, false light invasion of privacy, tortious interference wi

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

Zoeller v. Josef Silny & Associates

Date: 

02/13/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Josef Silny & Associates, Inc.

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Organization

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida

Case Number: 

2007-004167-CA-01

Publication Medium: 

Wiki

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Material Removed
Withdrawn

Description: 

Professional golfer Fuzzy Zoeller claimed that someone posted false statements about him on Wikipedia. Zoeller traced the IP address of the unknown author of the statements to a computer at Josef Silny & Associates, a Miami education consulting firm. Zoeller sued the firm for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He filed the suit anonymously, but media outlets quickly discovered his identity. In the complaint, Zoeller alleged that the Wikipedia entry falsely stated that he had abused drugs and alcohol and mistreated his family.

According to USA Today, the paragraph in question was removed, but the information had been picked up by other websites. The lawsuit said it falsely alleged that Zoeller abused drugs, alcohol and his family.

Zoeller failed to trace the IP address to one specific person, and Josef Silny & Associates repeatedly denied that any of its employees had authored the statements. Several months after filing, Zoeller voluntarily withrew the lawsuit.

Zoeller did not pursue a claim against Wikipedia, and statements from his lawyer to the press indicate a belief that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act barred a lawsuit directly against the online encyclopedia.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

DSA: Looked for name of lawyer who represented the defendant but could not find any mention. 10/9/08

Difrawi v. Henderson

Date: 

11/21/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Les Henderson; Daniel Bruce Scalf a.k.a. Frank Torelli; Jeremy Scalf; Conrad Longmore; John Doe 1 a.k.a. Klass Devries; John Doe 2 a.k.a. Dilly McGilly; John Doe 3 a.k.a. Scooper Joo; John Doe 4 a.k.a. www.easybackgroundcheck.com; John Doe 5 aka www.

Type of Party: 

Individual
Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

Case Number: 

6:07-CV-1854

Legal Counsel: 

Les Henderson (pro se), Daniel Bruce Scalf (pro se)

Publication Medium: 

Blog
Website

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Dismissed (partial)

Description: 

In November 2007, Internet Solutions Corporation and its President and Director Ayman Difrawi (a.k.a. Alec Difrawi) sued Les Henderson, Daniel Bruce Scalf, Jeremy Scalf, Conrad Longmore, and a number of anonymous defendants for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and other torts. The plaintiffs subsequently amended the complaint, dropping Longmore from the lawsuit. Henderson and certain other defendants operate websites aimed at increasing consumer awareness about Internet scams and so-called "phishing" activities.

The complaint, filed in federal court in Florida, alleges that the defendants published false and misleading statements about Difrawi and Internet Solutions on a variety of websites and other fora, including comments to the "Money Talk" blog on Tampabay.com. According to court documents, the defendants accused Difrawai of engaging in "on-going criminal activity in the performance of his marketing and consultant business" and suggested that "[Internet Solutions Corporation's] business interests are all fraudulent based on any association or business relationship with Difrawi," among other things.

Henderson and Daniel Bruce Scalf, who are representing themselves, filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. These motions are currently pending.

Update:

5/1/2008 - Judge ordered Difrawi to show cause why Jeremy Scalf and John Does 1-5 should not be dismissed from the lawsuit.

5/20/2008 - Judge dismissed Jeremy Scalf and John Does 1-5 without prejudice based on Difrawi's apparent lack of prosecution and failure to serve defendants in a timely fashion.

1/21/2009 - Case referred to mediation

5/28/2009 - Mediation set to begin Sept. 1, 2009.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

User submitted (email)

Status checked on 6/3/2008 (AAB)

Updated 1/22/09 - VAF

Updated 6/17/09 - CMF

Parker v. X17, Inc.

Date: 

12/19/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

X17, Inc.; X17online.com; Does 1-20

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Organization

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County

Case Number: 

SC096464

Legal Counsel: 

Turner Green Afrasiabi & Arledge LLP

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Retraction Issued
Settled (total)

Description: 

In December 2007, Tony Parker sued X17, Inc., the operator of X17online.com, a celebrity news and gossip website, alleging libel and false light invasion of privacy. According to Parker's complaint, which was filed in California state court, X17 published a series of online articles claiming that Parker had cheated on his wife, Eva Longeria, with "supposed" French model Alexandra Paressant. Parker maintains that this information is false. The complaint seeks $20 million in damages.

Update:

4/4/2008 - X17 published a retraction and an apology to Parker. 

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Status updated on 6/6/2008.  Although X17 published a retraction and several gossip sites say that a settlement has been reached, I couldn't find any primary sources to support settlement. (AAB)

'DontDateHim' Lawyer Todd Hollis Back in Court With Second Lawsuit Against Dating Advice Site

Pittsburgh lawyer Todd Hollis is back in court with a second lawsuit against the dating advice site Don'tDateHimGirl.com, whose users accused him of infidelity and infecting women with herpes. Hollis had previously filed a defamation lawsuit in Pennsylvania state court against the owner of the site back in June 2006.

Jurisdiction: 

Subject Area: 

Hollis v. Cunningham

Date: 

11/29/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Tasha C. Cunningham, Individually formerly known as Tasha C. Joseph; The Cavelle Company as owner and operator doing business as Dontdatehimgirl.com; Empress Motion Pictures; TJC Media Group

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual
Intermediary

Court Type: 

Federal

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Case Number: 

1:07-cv-23112-CMA

Legal Counsel: 

James C. Cunningham, Jr.

Publication Medium: 

Forum

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Settled (total)

Description: 

Todd Hollis objected to the information users posted about him on DontDateHimGirl.com, a website that allows women to post about men and warn other women about them. In May 2006, Mr. Hollis sued Tasha Joseph/Cunningham, the operator of the website, alleging defamation in Pennsylvania state court, after she refused to remove the posts.

The Pennsylvania court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction over Joseph/Cunningham, a resident of Florida.

On November 29, 2007, Hollis filed a second lawsuit in federal court in Florida, alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false light invasion of privacy. According to the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, Tasha Joseph/Cunningham issued the following statement in response to the new lawsuit:

DontDateHimGirl.com's mission is to empower women with the informationand connections that help them make better life decisions. DDHG.com is fully protected [from defamation lawsuits] by the Communication Decency Act. ... Any attack or lawsuit put forth regarding DDHG.com will be dealt with strongly, swiftly and in a manner which will seek to end this type of erroneous, wasteful litigation.
Update:

03/31/2008: Cunningham answered Hollis' complaint and filed a counterclaim against Hollis for defamation. The defamation claim arose from an telecopier document allegedly sent by an organization related to Hollis that stated as fact that Cunningham had been convicted of grand theft by the State of Florida.

04/14/2008: Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The motion argued that defendants were entitled to summary judgment on several of plaintiff's claims because certain examples of the disputed content were true and certain examples were entitled to protection under CDA 230.

03/2008 through 05/2008: Plaintiff and defendants filed a series of motions disputing discovery issues. These primarily concern defendants' requests for information from plaintiff and plaintiffs requests to depose individuals regarding defendants' reputation.

05/15/2008: Court dismissed Cunningham's counterclaim at Cunningham's request and granted Cunningham's request for protective orders that would prevent plaintiff from deposing certain individuals on the issue of defendants' reputation.

06/20/2008: The case has been dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of both parties. Details of the settlement are not yet available.

 

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Probably worth trying to find out the terms of the settlement. {MCS}

Bonlender v. Ensey

Date: 

11/14/2007

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Diane Ensey and Richard Ensey, a marital community

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Superior Court of the State of Washington, in and for the County of Yakima

Case Number: 

07-2-03942-1

Legal Counsel: 

Stephen Templeton Osborne

Publication Medium: 

Blog

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Disposition: 

Settled (total)

Description: 

Former Yakima City Councilman Ronald Bonlender filed a lawsuit claiming that his opponent's wife, Diane Ensey, anonymously defamed him and cast him in a false light on a blog.

The lawsuit alleges that Diane Ensey published entries on a blog under the pen name "Publius." According to court filings, in one of the blog entries, the plaintiff is referred to as "a drunk with several DUI arrests," which Bonlender claims is a false statement. The complaint further alleges that the website was taken down the day after the election, and that Richard Ensey admitted that his wife was the anonymous poster in a TV interview.  The complaint seeks general damages for emotional distress.

In January, the Enseys filed a motion for a change of venue due to extensive publicity in Yakima County.  After the judge denied the motion, the Enseys filed a motion for summary judgment.  The judge also denied that motion.  The court set a trial date for March 16, 2009.

On February 03, 2009, the parties settled the case out of court.  In exchange for dismissal of the suit, the Enseys agreed to pay money damages to Bonlender and to issue a public apology.  Bonlender has described the damages as "substantial."

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

http://dw.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm?fa=home.namesearchTerms - use this link to find any court updates on this case.

Updated 02/05/09 - MCS

Fitch v. Doe

Date: 

02/04/2004

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

John or Jane Doe

Type of Party: 

Individual

Type of Party: 

Individual

Court Type: 

State

Court Name: 

Cumberland County Superior Court; Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Case Number: 

CV-04-78 (trial court); Cum-04-295 (on appeal)

Legal Counsel: 

George J. Marcus, Jennie L. Clegg

Publication Medium: 

Email

Relevant Documents: 

Status: 

Concluded

Description: 

In February 2004, Ronald Fitch filed a John Doe lawsuit in state court in Maine based on a fake e-mail that was circulated in his name. According to papers filed in the lawsuit, an anonymous person set up an e-mail account (fitchisland@hotmail.com) using Fitch's name. On Christmas Eve 2003, several members of the board of directors of the gated community where Fitch lived received an e-mail from the account. The e-mail, entitled "Happy Holidays," contained a cartoon attachment that Fitch claimed was derogatory and was meant to depict him and his wife.

Fitch sued, alleging that the person who sent the email had misappropriated his identity, violated his privacy, portrayed him in a false light, inflicted emotional distress, and committed fraud. Fitch filed a motion to compel disclosure of information about the user of the email account from Time Warner Cable, who allegedly provided Internet access to the user. Time Warner refused to release any information without a court order referencing 47 U.S.C. § 551, a provision in the Cable Communications Policy Act that regulates cable companies' use of subscriber information. Counsel for the anonymous defendant appeared in the action and opposed the disclosure motion.

The trial court ordered disclosure, finding that the anonymous defendant had consented to disclosure in his user agreement. The anonymous defendant appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, which affirmed the lower court's decision, but based on different reasoning. The court held that, regardless of consent, section 551(c) and (h) of the Cable Communications Policy Act authorized disclosure of subscriber information pursuant to a court order so long as the cable provider notified the subscriber in advance.

Public Citizen Litigation Group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Maine Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus curiae brief before the Supreme Judicial Court, opposing disclosure based on First Amendment protections for anonymous speech. Counsel for the anonymous defendant also made the First Amendment argument on appeal. The court rejected this argument, however, because the anonymous defendant had not raised it before the trial court.

The record is unclear as to whether and how the lawsuit was resolved following disclosure of the anonymous defendant's identity.

Jurisdiction: 

Content Type: 

Subject Area: 

CMLP Notes: 

Status checked on 6/4/2008, no new information. (AAB)

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - False Light