SpamSuite.com
A Document Repository for Spam-Related Legal Documents
SearchSupport the SiteOur SponsorsLinks and SupportersCopyright Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
All copyright interests in the legal filings contained herein are expressly disclaimed. Documents, opinions, and comments provided on any Spamsuite.com page are for general information purposes only and are not intended to substitute for informed professional legal advice. Spamsuite.com expressly disclaims liability for any opinion expressed in comments. Spamsuite.com does not endorse any article comment. |
ORDER on MOTION to DismissThe Judge has denied both David Linhardt's and e360's attempt to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds. I think that this ruling is a bit shaky. I say that because the judge here seems to contemplate that the sending of email is an invitation to be sued in any jurisdiction:
Usually there is something stronger than "if you send email out on the internet it can go somewhere else" that links the ability of the defendant to ascertain the destination (say, a webpage or a whois record). I'm not sure that this is what normal jurisdictional analysis has in mind. That's not to say that I don't think that the Court may not be correct in its ruling. Especially if Ferron's assertion that e360 had state codes associated with addresses is correct, then there would be some form of notice that mail was flowing to Ohio. But, this bit of the judge's ruling doesn't address that. Bookmark/Search this post with:
|
Upcoming DatesNavigationFerron v. e360Insight LLC, et al.User loginRecent comments
Syndicate |
![[file]](http://spamsuite.com/icons//pdf.gif "Download MotDismissOrder.pdf"){kind=icon}
You seem to be misinterpreting the motion to dismiss order.
The Judge essentially said that Ferron met the burden of the three criteria.
Also that if Ferron received 900 estimated e-mails, then the defendant had to know that there was a likely-hood that his e-mails would in fact be sent to someone in Ohio.
The point was that Ferron met the burden of proof for this case to go forward.
Linhardt's going to have a hard time on this because of Maui Jim's lawsuit which is in the public eye.
It doesn't really look like it
You seem to agree with the judge although your point is still further out there.
If someone in some place gets a lot of email from you then you must know where on the globe that someone is located so you shouldn't be surprised to be hailed into court in that somewhere.
I still don't buy that.
Post new comment