SearchSupport the SiteOur SponsorsLinks and SupportersCopyrightExcept 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. |
FergusonORDERS on Cross Motions for Summary JudgmentThe judge in this case has ruled for Quinstreet. The determinations here were that Ferguson did qualify as an Interactive Service Provider for the purposes of CAN-SPAM, but did not suffer an "adverse effect" as contemplated by the statute. The Court also ruled that the Washington State anti-spam law is pre-empted by CAN-SPAM.
REPLY to RESPONSE to MOTION for Partial Summary JudgmentHere is Ferguson's Reply to Quinstreet's Response in opposition to his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
RESPONSE to Motion for Partial Summary JudgmentHere is Quinstreet's response to Ferguson's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
MOTION for Partial Summary JudgmentHere is Ferguson's motion for partial summary judgment.
REPLY to RESPONSE to MOTION for Summary JudgmentHere is Quinstreet's reply to Ferguson's opposition to their Motion for Summary Judgment.
RESPONSE to Motion for Summary JudgmentHere is Ferguson's response to Quinstreet's Motion for Summary Judgment.
MOTION for Summary JudgmentHere is Quinstreet's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Cross Motions for Summary JudgmentHaving released everyone from the case except for Quinstreet, cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. Quinstreet filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Ferguson filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
MOTION to DismissI guess the money for all of this litigation is starting to run low. e360 is cutting this lawsuit loose with a voluntary motion to dismiss WITH PREJUDICE (meaning that they cannot refile the case later if they change their minds). Status ReportIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E360INSIGHT, LLC, an Illinois Limited v. MARK JAMES FERGUSON, an individual, JOINT STATUS REPORT
|
Upcoming DatesNavigationUser login |
Recent comments
2 days 3 hours ago
1 week 4 days ago
4 weeks 4 days ago
5 weeks 4 days ago
7 weeks 6 hours ago
7 weeks 1 day ago
7 weeks 4 days ago
8 weeks 3 days ago
9 weeks 4 days ago
11 weeks 1 day ago