SpamSuite.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, TACOMA

MARK FERGUSON, a married
individual, d/b/a WHEW.COM,
Plaintiff,

v.

ACTIVE RESPONSE GROUP, an
New York company;
THE BRADFORD EXCHANGE,
LTD., an Illinois corporation;
QUINSTREET, INC., a California
corporation;
VISION CARE HOLDINGS, LLC., a
Florida Limited Liability Company;
NAUTILUS, INC., a Washington

Here's the Bradford Exchange's Answer to the lawsuit.

The affirmative defenses are interesting. Most of the affirmative defenses are prophylactic in nature (they're there just in case, because failure to assert a defense is a waiver of the defense). Here, in Texas, those don't carry much weight because, by and large, not only must you assert the defense, you must actually pursue the defense.

Would you like to know what keeps me going at this? What makes a lawsuit interesting enough to me to track? What keeps me looking at lawsuits and turning PDF documents into text for your reading pleasure. Sheer incompetence.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

Mark Ferguson, a married individual, d/b/a
WHEW.COM,
Plaintiff,

v.

ACTIVE RESPONSE GROUP, a New York
company; THE BRADFORD EXCHANGE,
LTD., an Illinois corporation; QUINSTREET,
INC., a California corporation; VISION CARE
HOLDINGS, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, NAUTILUS, INC., a Washington
corporation; and JOHN DOES, 1-CC,
Defendants.

DEFENDANT ACTIVE RESPONSE GROUP, INC.'S ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT

In Texas state courts, this answer would possibly be striken as our Supreme Court has stated that prophylactic defenses and objections are wasteful of judicial resources. But, there's no need to fear! The prophylactic defense is here! (with apologies to Underdog). What? You don't see that here?

Active Response Group

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Ambika K. Doran
Thomas R. Burke (Pro Hac Vice GRANTED)

===========================

Bradford Exchange

Newman & Newman, Attorneys at Law, LLP
Derek Newman
Derek Linke

[NOTE: They were the attorneys for Virtumundo in Gordon v. Virtumundo, et al.]

i.JUSTICE Law, P.C.

Robert J. Segal
Douglas E. McKinley, Jr.

These are the attorneys present in the case.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE

MARK FERGUSON, a married
individual, d/b/a WHEW.COM,
Plaintiff

v.

ACTIVE RESPONSE GROUP, an
New York company;
THE BRADFORD EXCHANGE,
LTD., an Illinois corporation;
QUINSTREET, INC., a California
corporation;
VISION CARE HOLDINGS, LLC., a
Florida Limited Liability Company;
NAUTILUS, INC., a Washington
corporation; and JOHN DOES, I-CC,
Defendants,

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, VENUE

On July 27, 2007, Mark Ferguson, a resident of Washington State, filed suit against Active Response Group Inc., Quinstreet Inc, Nautilus, Bradford Exchange LTD, Vision Care Holding LLC.

Ferguson alleges violations of the Washington Commercial Email Act, the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and the federal CAN-SPAM Act.