On December 22, 2008, Deborah Dolen, author of several "Do It Yourself" craft books, sued Julie Ryals and an unknown poster, listed on the complaint as "Jane Doe Libel Cyberstalker," for negative statements about Dolen that appeared on BustedScammers.com.  Dolen, acting pro se, alleged internet fraud, cyberstalking, libel, defamation, and disparagement. She requested a temporary injunction shutting down Ryals' servers hosting The Design Shoppe.com and BustedScammers.com, as well as $100,000 for each "violation."

On January, 21, 2009, Dolen filed an amended complaint which added Mary Joanne Kidd, Jeffery Kidd, and Mary Harvey as defendants alleging that Mary Kidd was the co-owner of BustedScammers.com and that Jeff Kidd and Harvey committed libel through chat room activity.  Dolen also added counts of trade libel and copyright infringement.  

On February 18, 2009, Ryals filed an answer and counterclaims as well as a motion for summary judgment.  Ryals' answer denied that she had any ownership interest in BustedScammers.com, and her counterclaims alleged that Dolen defamed and slandered her on Topix.com.  Ryals' requested an injunction preventing Dolen from contacting her or posting information about her.  Ryals also alleges that Dolen is cybersquatting on JulieRyals.com and requests transfer of the domain name to her. The Kidds and Harvey submitted substantially similar answers, counterclaims, and motions for summary judgment.  

On February 27, 2009, the court determined Dolen's current claims may be adversely affected by her bankruptcy matter, and the court stayed the case until bankruptcy proceedings concluded.  The court lifted the stay and reinstated the defendants' claims against Dolen in September 2009.

On September 17, 2009, Kent Rowald, the defendants' lawyer, filed a third-party complaint against Dolen, claiming that Dolen had defamed him. The court severed Rowald's complaint from the case, and ordered both parties to remove from the Internet all critical comments each made about the other.

In October 2009, the court sua sponte ordered the case transferred to the Middle District of Florida.

On June 17, 2010, Dolen filed a second amended complaint, wherein she made claims of trademark infringement, defamation, false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Ryals. Dolen's new complaint made no claims against Mary Kidd, Jeffery Kidd, or Mary Harvey. Both Ryals and the Kidds filed answers and counterclaims. The Kidds also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, based on their absence from the second amended complaint.

On October 19, 2010, Dolen moved to be allowed to file a third amended complaint.

On February 24, 2011, the court granted the Kidds' motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed Dolen's claims against them with prejudice.  The court also dismissed the counterclaims the Kidds made in their response to Dolen's second amended complaint.  Further, the court denied Dolen's motion to file a third amended complaint.

Update:

April 18, 2011: A jury trial on the remaining claims in the case begins.

April 22, 2011: The court grants cross-motions for judgment as a matter of law, finding that Dolen had failed to present evidence legally sufficient to sustain her claims against Ryals, and that Ryals had failed to present evidence legally sufficient to sustain her counterclaim against Dolen.

April 25, 2011: The court enters judgment in favor of Ryals on Dolen's claims, and in favor of Dolen on Ryals's counterclaim.

May 5, 2011: The defendants move for an award of attorneys' fees, seeking $218,189.10 in attorney's fees and litigation costs.

Feburary 10, 2012: A magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation that the defendants be awarded $6,300 in attorney's fees, identifying twelve frivolous motions filed by the plaintiff. The magistrate rejects the defendants' argument for further fees and costs.

March 22, 2012: The court adopts the magistrate's report and recommendation, and orders the entry of judgment in favor of the defendants for 6,300.

March 23, 2012: Judgment enters consistent with the March 22 order.

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. 

Kristen Rhoad posted statements on her blog accusing her ex-husband Phil Haberman of abuse and of falsifying his military experience. Sometime in 2006, Haberman sued Rhoad to have the blog removed after the postings were noted in other blogs and newspapers. The complaint alleged that Rhoad's comments constituted cyberstalking under Florida law (Fla. Stat. § 784.048(d)).

In September 2006, the court issued an injunction, barring Rhoad from contacting Haberman, and additionally ordering her to remove all blogs relating to, and to cease posting about, him. Florida officials apparently threatend to extradite her and charge her with contempt of court if she did not take down the blog. The blog is no longer active.

Update:

9/7/07 - Defendant filed a motion for relief from the injunction. Rhoad has stated that the judge thus far has refused to hear the motion as of 01/15/08.