In March 2011, Joseph Rakofsky represented a defendant in a murder trial in Washington, D.C. According to court filings, on April 1 he withdrew as counsel, leading to a mistrial, at which time the presiding judge made a number of unflattering statements about Mr. Rakofsky's performance at trial. The Washington Post originally reported on the mistrial. Other publications, like the Washington City Paper, soon followed. From there, Mr. Rakofsky's story spread throughout the legal blogosphere, drawing comment from dozens of bloggers.

On May 11, Mr. Rakofsky filed suit in New York state court against the Post, the City Paper, and many bloggers who had written about him. At issue is the way Mr. Rakofsky's removal from the murder trial has been characterized: In his complaint, Mr. Rakofsky maintains that he left the murder trial by his own motion. Media coverage, like the Post article, focused on the judge's comments about Mr. Rakofsky's command of legal procedures, the fact that Mr. Rakofsky stated in court that he had never before tried a case, and an alleged email from Mr. Rakofsky to an investigator instructing the investigator to "trick" a witness into changing her testimony. The Post quotes the judge as telling Mr. Rakofsky that his trial performance was "below what any reasonable person would expect in a murder trial." A transcript of the judge's comments is now available. The bloggers sued by Mr. Rakofsky generally describe him as "too incompetent to handle the case," or otherwise suggest that the mistrial was due to Mr. Rakofsky's "inexperience."

Mr. Rakofsky initially sued 74 parties; the complaint often names both individual bloggers and their associated businesses. (For example, the complaint names both "The Law Offices of Michael T. Doudna" and "Michael T. Doudna, individually.")

The initial complaint contains two causes of action: (1) defamation, and (2) violations of sections 50 and 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law, alleging that defendants used Mr. Rakofsky's name and picture for commercial purposes without his consent.

On May 16, Mr. Rakofsky amended his complaint to add a count of intentional infliction of emotional distress and a count of interference with Mr. Rakofsky's contracts with other clients. The number of defendant parties also rose to 75.

As of June 1, 2011, some defendants apparently had not yet been served. 

On June 3, New York attorney Eric Turkewitz and Nevada attorney Marc Randazza, representing approximately 30 of the named defendants (including Mr. Turkewitz himself), motioned for a time extention for all defendants, to help organize what the motion calls "the oncoming blizzard of paperwork" as various defendants respond to the complaint. Mr. Turkewitz also submitted an affidavit in which he discussed the background of the case and the legal issues involved.

On June 4, New York attorney David Brickman, representing defendants Maxwell Kennerly and Mr. Kennerly's law firm The Beasley Firm, filed a motion to dismiss. The accompanying memorandum argues that Mr. Kennerly's blog post is a combination of opinion and fair reporting of court proceedings; thus, according to the memo, the case should be dismissed.

One June 13, Mr. Brickman, also representing Mirriam Seddiq and Jameson Koehler, filed two more motions to dismiss. The motions are mostly identical to Mr. Kennerly's motion.

Update:

6/13/2011 - Rakofsky's attorney, Richard Borzouye, files notice that on July 1 he will move to withdraw from the case. On the same day, acting pro se, Rakofsky files a memo opposing the pro hac admission of Marc Randazza.

6/15/2011 - Defendant Mace Yampolsky answers the complaint and asserts affirmative defenses including, inter alia, that the court lacks personal jurisdiction, that the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted, and that Rakofsky's lawsuit is frivolous. Yampolsky also seeks sanctions and attorneys' fees.

6/17/2011 - Marc Randazza and Eric Turkewitz file “reply affidavits” in support of Randazza's pro hac admission; the "affidavits" discuss communication between Rakofsky, Borzouye, and the defense.

6/22/2011 - Reuters and its reporter Daniel Slater file notice of a motion to dismiss. The motion and accompanying memo discuss the merits of the defamation and misappropriation claims.

On the same day, Eric Turkewitz files an affidavit, partially opposing Richard Borzouye's motion to withdraw as Rakofsky's attorney. Turkewitz expresses concern with the corporate plaintiff's impending lack of counsel.

6/24/2011 - Defendant Michael Doudna files notice of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the motion also seeks sanctions against Rakofsky for bringing a "frivolous" lawsuit in "bad faith." Harmony Kenney, who operated Doudna's website, files a supporting affidavit.

7/20/2011 - The Washington Post, its reporter Keith Alexander, and its researcher Jennifer Jenkins, move to dismiss. The motion discusses both substantive issues (including that the Post article is protected by the fair report privilege) and jurisdictional issues (long-arm jurisdiction over Alexander and Jenkins).

7/21/2011 - Georgia attorney Jeanne O'Halleran files a motion to dismiss, and an accompanying affidavit. The memorandum in support of the motion argues, inter alia, a lack of personal jurisdiction and that O’Halleran’s statements were a fair and accurate report, and asks for sanctions. The filings include a copy of the D.C. murder-trial transcript from the day before the mistrial, and a copy of the investigator's "motion" that raised ethical issues.

On the same day, the Washington City Paper and its associated defendants file a motion to dismiss on similar grounds, along with affidavits from its reporter, publisher, and parent company VP/CFO. The City Paper and O'Halleran are both represented by Davis Wright Tremaine.

7/22/2011 - The trial court grants Richard Borzouye's motion to withdraw as Rakofsky's attorney. The court stays proceedings until September 14, to allow Rakofsky to find a new attorney.

6/28/2012 - The court (Hagler, J.) holds a hearing on the pending motions to dismiss and on a motion by Rakofsky to submit a second amended complaint. The defendants, through selected representatives among defense counsel, and the plaintiffs, represented by a new attorney (Matthew Goldsmith, Esq.), argue the application to Rakofsky's claims of the fair report privilege, the republication privilege (for those defendants who republished an original account in the Washington Post), 47 U.S.C. § 230 (for one defendant who operates an online forum), Rakofsky's status as a public figure, and assorted jurisdictional issues. Plaintiffs' counsel also argue that new claims that they have proposed to add to the case are not duplicative of their defamation claim. At the end of the hearing, Judge Hagler took the motions under advisement, but stated to plaintiffs' counsel:

...Right now there's a very high standard to hold a newspaper liable for -- pardon the pun -- for libel, l-i-b-e-l. ... I don't see how you make that burden. And what I suggest is, is that you seriously speak to your client about withdrawing all these claims. And at the end of the day, I'm going to make a decision. I don't think it's going to be -- based upon this argument, and I'm not making a ruling now, it doesn't look like it's going to be in your favor.

(Transcript p. 91, ll. 10-20).

7/1/2012 - Rakofsky, in a letter to the court over his own name, argues that his proposed claim for negligence in his second amended complaint is not duplicative of his defamation claim.

1/2/2013 - After a six month period in which plaintiffs did not withdraw their claims as urged by the court at the June 28, 2012 hearing, the defendants represented by the Turkewitz Law Firm and Randazza Legal Group file a motion for sanctions against plaintiffs and attorney Goldsmith for vexatious conduct and frivolous claims.

 4/29/2013 - The court consolidated all pending motions and issued an order addressing these motions. The court dismissed claims for lack of personal jurisdiction against the defendants that so moved, finding that Rakofsky did not establish that the defendants engaged in any purposeful activity and minimum contacts in New York, such that New York's long-arm jurisdiction statute would apply. The court also granted the motions to dismiss on the defamation claim substantively, finding that the defendants' statements regarding the mistrial were not defamatory, the allegations of incompetence and substance of the allegations of bad ethical behavior were protected by New York's fair report privilege, and all other statements were either opinions based on disclosed facts or pure opinion. The parties that republished or summarized the Washington Post story were also found to have a valid wire service republication defense.

The court also dismissed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, finding no showing of the requisite "extreme and outrageous conduct," and the intentional interference with contract claim, finding that claim inadequately  pleaded. The court dismissed the misappropriation of name or likeness claims under N.Y. Civil Law §§ 50-51, finding this reporting under the "newsworthiness" exception to those claims.

The court denied Rakofsky's leave to amend the petition to add claims of injurious falsehood, prima facie tort, and negligence, finding the injurious falsehood and negligence claims duplicative, and finding that Rakofsky will be unable to to plead special damages for the prima facie tort.

The court also denied without prejudice Rakofsky's motions to discontinue the action against eight of the defendants, and for default judgment against seven of the plaintiffs, because Rakofsky did not adequately identify the parties at issue. As to the motion for default, the court advised Rakofsky to consider "if it is appropriate to seek this relief again based on the rulings herein." The court declined to issue sanctions sought by both sides.

In October 2009, Ralph Lauren sent a DMCA takedown notice to Boing Boing's webhost, Priority Colo, alleging that Boing Boing's posting of a Ralph Lauren advertisement violated its copyright. The Ralph Lauren advertisement featured a photograph of an improbably skinny model that appeared to have been photoshopped, and Xeni Jardin's post on Boing Boing reproduced the advertisement with a critical caption: "Dude, her head's bigger than her pelvis." Priority Colo and Boing Boing refused to remove the post, citing fair use.

The advertisement originally came to Jardin's attention via another blog, Photoshop Disasters. Photoshop Disasters published the advertisement with its own critical caption: "Make her head bigger than her pelvis! Do it!" Ralph Lauren also sent a DMCA takedown notice to Blogger, Photoshop Disasters' blog host, which removed the image.  (The original post is still available through Google's cache.)  It is not clear whether Photoshop Disasters submitted a counter-notification and whether the post will be restored.

After a great deal of media attention stemming from the takedown notices, Ralph Lauren acknowledged responsibility for photoshopping the image in a statement saying, "[f]or over 42 years we have built a brand based on quality and integrity. After further investigation, we have learned that we are responsible for the poor imaging and retouching that resulted in a very distorted image of a woman's body."

Counsel for Newt Gingrich, Saul Anuzis, and American Solutions for Winning the Future sent a cease-and-desist letter to The Truth About EFCA.org, a website advocating in favor of enacting the proposed Employee Free Choice Act. The website is run anonymously, so the letter was sent to its domain registrar ContactPrivacy.com (owned by Tucows, Inc.).  It was cc'd  to Twitter, Inc. 

The letter complains about a Twitter user going by the handle EFCANOW who tweeted the following on May 2, 2009:  "Join @newtgingrich @sanuzis in signing the EFCA Freedom Not Fear petition at http://action.americanright... WSJ." The letter demands "that you immediately take down an illegal and fraudulent posting on Twitter . . . which falsely purports to be written by our clients and unlawfully uses the name of Messrs. [Newt] Gingrich and [Saul] Anuzis."  

The letter asserts that the continued publication of the offending tweet "can expose any and all involved parties (including Twitter, ContactPrivacy.com and/or TwoCows [sic]) to substantial, ongoing, and even personal liability," and claims that the tweet constitutes trademark infringement, violation of Gingrich's and Anuzis' publicity rights, false advertising, false designation of origin, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and contractual relations, common law and computer trespass, conversion, traditional fraud and wire fraud, breach of contract, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and RICO violations.

Medinah Mining Company ("Medinah"), a Nevada corporation, and Les Price, a Canadian citizen and officer and director of Medinah, sued sixteen individual defendants from Chile, Canada, and several U.S. states, alleging that they defamed Medinah and Price over the Internet, including on the Raging Bull forum. The complaint failed to identify the specific allegedly defamatory statements, saying only that the defendants' comments related to the integrity and business ethics of Medinah and Price.  Besides defamation, the complaint included ten related claims, including for tortious interference, outrage, and fraud.  

Several defendants moved to dismiss on various grounds, including failure to serve process and lack of personal jurisdiction.  The court dismissed one defendant, James Ingram, for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Ingram was a resident of Arkansas, who had never been to Nevada or done business there. The court held that Ingram's postings on the Internet were insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over him to a Nevada court.  The court ultimately dismissed the entire case for failure to prosecute. 

Former Miss West Virginia, Allison Williams, filed a lawsuit against approximately sixty defendants, including Joseph Vitagliano, who operates Taxi Driver, a website that focuses on celebrity gossip and regularly features nude or semi-nude photographs of female celebrities. Williams alleges that Vitagliano defamed her by posting an advertisement on his website that falsely indicated that she, as Miss West Virginia, participated in a pornographic video that was available for download. 

Williams' complaint alleges defamation, false light invasion of privacy, misappropriation of name and likeness, and violation of the right of publicity. Williams seeks permanent injunctive relief.

According to filings in the case, Vitigliano's website contained advertisments for pornographic websites, including an advertisement for a site that allegedly offered to sell a pornographic video described as depicting "Allison Williams, Miss West Virginia."  Williams avers that she never appeared in the sex tape advertised on Taxi Driver, and has never appeared in any other pornographic video.

On August 31, 2007, the Court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Vitigliano because he had not purposefully availed himself of contacts in West Virginia.  The suit continues as to a number of the other defendants.

The case is also noteworthy because the court allowed plaintiff to serve litigation documents on one of the foreign defendants by email (see Internet Cases blog on this).

Dealbreaker.com, a website that describes itself as "an online business tabloid and Wall Street gossip site," received a letter from counsel for Solengo Capital, a hedge fund founded by former Amaranth Advisors traders, asserting that Dealbreaker's posting of Solengo's prospectus was a violation of Solengo's copyright.

In response to the letter, editors at Dealbreaker said the materials were of legitimate news value and refused to remove them, telling Reuters:

"We think it's valuable to our readers and the public to be able to see the information in it," said John Carney, DealBreaker editor, in an interview on Friday.

The legal dust-up is the latest stemming from the abrupt implosion of $9.3 billion hedge fund Amaranth last year, which shocked investors and raised awareness of hedge fund risk. The recent founding of Solengo by some of the energy traders blamed for the $6 billion in losses that caused the Amaranth collapse has also generated controversy.

Carney, a former corporate lawyer, said his site plans to contest any legal challenge. "We're willing to take it as far as it merits. I don't expect to defy a court order or go to jail for it, however."

On March 30, 2007, Solengo followed up the letter with an order to show cause seeking a preliminary injunction ordering Dealbreaker to remove the prospectus from its website. After the court denied the injunction request, Solengo filed a complaint alleging copyright infringement against the website and several of its editors.

Global Royalties, Ltd., an international firm that brokers investments in gemstones, sued Xcentric Ventures, Inc., Ed Magedson, and Jane Doe Magedson over three allegedly defamatory posts made by a third party, Spencer Sullivan, on Xcentric's website Ripoff Report. According to the amended complaint, Sullivan criticized Global Royalties and individuals associated with it and accused the company of "operating a scam involving the sale of gem stones." Am. Compl. ¶ 15. Sullivan allegedly posted this latter comment under the category "Con Artists," one of a number of categories Ripoff Report users can choose from when posting. Id.¶ 16. After Global Royalties' lawyers contacted him, Sullivan requested that his posts be removed from the website. Ripoff Report did not remove the posts, following its strict policy against removing reports.

In July 2006, Global Royalties and its owner, Brandon Hall, sued Sullivan and Xcentric in the Superior Court of Ontario, Canada. When Xcentric did not appear to defend itself, the Canadian court found it in default and issued an order requiring Xcentric to remove the disputed statements. When Xcentric still refused to take down the posts, Global Royalties and Hall sued in federal court in Arizona, seeking to enforce the Canadian court order and bringing a defamation claim under Arizona law.

Xcentric moved to dismiss on the grounds that the Canadian order was unenforceable and that the defamation claim was barred by the statute of limitations, the truth of the statements, and CDA 230 immunity. The court granted Xcentric's motion to dismiss, ruling that the Canadian order was not entitled to enforcement because it was not a final judgment. The court dismissed the defamation claim on grounds that CDA 230 immunized the defendants. It ruled that CDA 230 protected the defendants even though they provided a list of categories including the term "Con Artist" and even though Sullivan himself asked for the post to be removed. The court allowed Global Royalties to file an amended complaint, which it did in December 2007.

The amended complaint dropped the claim for enforcement of the Canadian order and re-pled the defamation claim. Xcentric again moved to dismiss, raising CDA 230 and statute of limitations defenses. In opposing the motion, Global Royalties recycled its previous argument that CDA 230 should not protect website operators when the author of a statement asks for it to be removed. In February 2008, the court granted Xcentric's motion and dismissed the case, noting that "liability based on an author's notice, workable or not, is without statutory support and is contrary to well-settled precedent that the CDA is a complete bar to suit against a website operator for its 'exercise of a publisher's traditional editorial functions -- such as deciding whether or not to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content.'"