Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
O R D E R
I. Factual Background
manager of Xcentric Ventures [Doc. No. 30-3, page 2]. This case
Jane Doe” [Doc. No. 1, pages 10-11]. The report is written from
keyword metatags for the report which are used by Internet search
On February 11, 2010, the plaintiffs filed this suit [Doc. No.
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 156 (1970); Johnson v.
Clifton, 74 F.3d 1087, 1090 (11th Cir. 1996). The moving party's
2
Case 1:10-cv-00398-CAP Document 58 Filed 02/14/11 Page 3 of 7
whether the moving party has met this burden, the district court
must view the evidence and all factual inferences in the light most
1090. Once the moving party has adequately supported its motion,
the non-movant then has the burden of showing that summary judgment
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251 (1986). The applicable
substantive law will identify those facts that are material. Id.
at 247. Facts that in good faith are disputed, but which do not
resolve or affect the outcome of the case, will not preclude the
basis in the record. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. When the record
3
Case 1:10-cv-00398-CAP Document 58 Filed 02/14/11 Page 4 of 7
as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the
(citations omitted).
413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008). Since the CDA was enacted in 1996, every
state and federal court that has considered the merits of a claim
4
Case 1:10-cv-00398-CAP Document 58 Filed 02/14/11 Page 5 of 7
Xcentric and Magedson are entitled to immunity under the CDA for
judgment because they are immune from suit under the CDA for the
following reasons:
or Jane Doe” logged onto the Ripoff Report and posted a report
containing this report includes some content from the author and
some generic content created by the defendants [Doc. No. 30-4, page
6]. When the user submitted his/her posting to the site, the
5
Case 1:10-cv-00398-CAP Document 58 Filed 02/14/11 Page 6 of 7
website [Doc. No. 30-4, page 10]. The “original content” to which
than generic text contained in the website’s code which was created
prior to the time that Doe wrote the report at issue here [Id.].
generated reports on the site [Doc. No. 30-4, page 7]. Likewise,
every page on the entire website includes the same generic metatags
“rip-off, ripoff, and rip off” which are used to identify the
Ripoff Report website and index the website, not to disparage the
plaintiffs [Doc. No. 30-4, page 8]. As such, the defendants did
not “add their own original content” to material from the third-
portions of the Ripoff Report website and did not create or alter
any part of the report about the plaintiffs, the CDA applies to bar
these claims.
creators of the words “Ripoff Report,” the website address, and the
6
Case 1:10-cv-00398-CAP Document 58 Filed 02/14/11 Page 7 of 7
admit that they created that material. However, the defendants are
alia, that ‘the publication was about the plaintiff, that is,
Smith v. Stewart, 660 S.E.2d 822, 828 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting
claims.
IV. Conclusion
motions in this case [Doc. Nos. 45, 46, and 54] are DISMISSED as