Legal Information Page

Cases being followed:

Optinrealbig.com vs. Ironport dba Spamcop

SETTLED September 2, 2004

US District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland Division. Case number: 4:04-cv-01687-SBA

Last updated: September 2, 2004

Case Status

Case has been settled according to an announcement by Optin. Read the Release

Buckeye Cablevision vs. SpamCop.net and IronPort Systems

US District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Western Division. Case Number: 3:04-cv-07210

Last updated: August 14, 2004.

Case Status

Status report due 10/1/04.

AAW Marketing, LLC vs. Julian Haight

DISMISSED August 13, 2004

US District Court, District of Nevada. Case Number CV-S-04-0985 - KJD-PAL

Last updated: August 14, 2004.

Case Status

Based on the PACER entry it appears this case was voluntarily dismissed on August 13. There are no documents associated with the entry.

Other Cases Of Interest

Pallorium vs. Joe Jared

Texas company is suing the operator of relays.osirusoft.com. Case docs available.

Comments and changelog

August 14, 2004

Sorry for the downtime. The facility that provides our service had a major outage and it took a couple days to resolve.

Ironport's response to the First Amended Complaint is now due on August 19th. A status report in the Buckeye case is due on October 1.

PACER says there was a voluntary dismissal in the AAW Marketing case, but there are no documents associated with that. Docs up as soon as I get them.

August 9, 2004

Ironport's response to the First Amended Complaint is due on August 10. Both parties filed a motion stipulating that Ironport had extra time to respond. I have the document and will get it on the site, soon.

July 31, 2004

Couple new things this week that are worth mentioning. One, we're looking at a new layout for the site that will allow us to put up forums for people to talk about what's going on in the various cases. That should also allow us to follow more cases. If you have a case you're interested in drop me an email. I'll also be happy to link to websites following other cases. I did start marking the case docs are associated with in the pdf file names, since now we're following three.

Speaking of 3 cases, the newest case added is AAW Marketing (symbol AAWCASE) vs. Julian Haight. The case was originally filed in Clark County, Nevada on April 27, but has since been moved, on the motion of the defendant, to Federal court. Clark County does not have the docs online but I have copied over the federal documents.

Judge Armstrong, the judge in the Optin vs. Ironport case, published rulings on two motions this week. She denied Ironport's motion to dismiss under California's anti-SLAPP law. She also denied Optin's motion to strike Ironport's reply brief in support of the SLAPP motion.

It's important to remember the denial of the anti-SLAPP motion is not a ruling on the merits of the case. Rather, when Optin amended their complaint the original complaint was rendered moot. Because the original complaint was moot, the motion to dismiss that complaint could not be granted. There are a couple situations that would have changed this:

• If Ironport has filed a response to the original complaint, then Optin would not have been able to file an amended complaint without leave of the court.
• If the judge had published a ruling on the SLAPP motion in the 3 days between between when Optin should have objected and when Optin filed the amended complaint then the SLAPP motion would have been granted.

Now that the judge has ruled, Ironport has 10 days (until August 13) to respond to Optin's complaint. I expect, too, that they will re-file their motion to dismiss under the California anti-SLAPP statute.

July 13, 2004 (7 pm Pacific):

I did get to the hearing today. The judge didn't actually rule on the motion. Most of the hour and a half was spent on case law surrounding what happens to a SLAPP motion when a plaintiff amends a complaint. The judge thanked both counsel for their time, said the discussion was helpful and will rule. 10 days after she rules, IP must respond to the first amended complaint.

July 13, 2004 (11 am Pacific):

Optin filed a motion to have the judge reconsider her ruling on the PI. There's a hearing in Oakland in 2 hours which I am planning on attending.

July 4, 2004:

Today, Ironport filed a motion asking for an extention to the deadline for the reply to Optin's first amended complaint. It seems the deadline for a response is July 12, the day before the SLAPP hearing. Ironport points out this will have no effect on the court's timeline and that it will allow Ironport to take into account the judge's ruling from the hearing.

The Ohio court has scheduled a pre-trial conference for July 12, 2004.

July 3, 2004:

Sorry for missing the IP filings from 6/29.

A short summary of where we are now (from my non-lawyer perspective, if there are any discrepancies between the documents and my interpretations, the documents are correct.):

• Optin filed a complaint against SpamCop alleging trade libel, tortious interference with contract and intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage and was granted an ex-parte TRO.
• SpamCop filed an objection to the TRO and it was lifted less than 24 hours after it was granted.
• Optin requested a preliminary injunction.
• At the first hearing, the judge requested SpamCop file a supplemental brief.
• SpamCop filed the requested supplemental brief. Optin filed a brief as well.
• SpamCop also filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion for a hearing under the CA anti-SLAPP statutes.
• There was a very long wait for the judge to rule on the PI.
• The deadline for Optin to oppose the motion to dismiss came and went with no filing from Optin.
• The judge denied the PI with a 20 page brief. First, she pointed out that Optin did not have leave of the court to file their supplemental briefing and noted that further abuse of court proceedings may result in sanctions. Then she ruled that SpamCop was immune to the allegations of Optin under the CDA (Communications Decency Act). She further pointed out that even if SpamCop was not immune, the PI would be denied because 2 of the requests were "too broad and vague for a Preliminary Injunction". In considering the other two requests, that it was difficult to say that Optin would prevail on the merits of either claim. She also ruled that the PI did not ask for maintenance of the status quo, but imposed significant operational changes on SpamCop. There was more, but I encourage you to go read her brief fully.
• On the same day that the judge ruled on the PI, Optin filed an amended complaint alleging unfair trade practices (that Iroport was using SpamCop to bully Optin into purchasing services from Ironport), unfair competition, inducing breach of contract, and re-alleging the same issues as their initial complaint.
• SpamCop filed a brief supporting their request for a SLAPP hearing. This ws not filed in response to any Optin brief, but was filed on the date they were required to file a response to the Optin oppostion brief (the one that Optin did not file).
• Optin filed a motion to dismiss the SLAPP motion as they amended their original complaint. As the SLAPP motion was against the original complaint, they claim filing an Amended Complaint renders the SLAPP motion moot.
• SpamCop filed a memo of law supporting their SLAPP motion, even in the face of an amended complaint.

The SLAPP hearing is scheduled for July 13 in Oakland.