Comments on: AutoAdmit Sued

By: colleen

colleen — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:44:45 +0000

I sincerely hope the next steps are that the law schools start examining these students who are aiding in the harassment of their peers. There is no reason that they should not be expelled from these universities for their role in making the academic (and home) environments for these students unsafe.

Also, there are few things as horrible as Ann Althouse. It disgusts me that she is a law professor at UW because I was considering going there. Not now.

By: mythago

mythago — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:32:52 +0000

the per se claim keeps them from getting rid of the defamation claim on a motion.

They’d probably have a pretty tough time getting it thrown out on a motion, anyway, although I see what you’re saying.

If there’s a copyright violation, there’s no reason not to put it in the complaint–especially if it’s something that can be used in settlement negotations.

By: Feministe » Take it like a man

Feministe » Take it like a man — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:10:42 +0000

[...] le. Or so say Ann Althouse, Eugene Volokh and Glenn Reynolds. They’re responding to the AutoAdmit lawsuit, and, unsurprisingly, they think that it’s just a ca [...]

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:14:57 +0000

Kristen, those are all good guesses. The second is, in my view, less likely because if that were a central goal they would have sued Cohen directly. Instead, see the discussion above, they appear to be trying a bank-shot to make Ciolli bring him in. Not that they can’t do both, but if they were looking for a CDA test case, why not take the direct route? E-discovery depends on differences from CT procedure that I just am not knowledgable about, but if CT is weaker, then that would be a good reason to go fed; same thing for longarm jurisdiction. New Jersey, for example, will exercise jurisdiction if an atom from a defendant’s prior out-of-state flatulence entered the vicinity of the plaintiff at any time thereafter. But that’s a matter of New Jersey Parochial Law Practice Act, making sure that their courts are full of cases and empty of New York lawyers. I don’t know if CT takes the same approach.

By: Kristen

Kristen — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:45:39 +0000

So … why do all that work to be in Fed court?

Well, these are just some guesses (I’m not a litigator), but how about:

1. The e-discovery rules which make it clear that a defendant must retain even inaccessible data.
2. This may be a great test case for the Communications Decency Act.
3. It may be a case of choosing a Court that is more likely to grant personal jurisdiction based on website activity

I’m sure there are a million more. Anyone have any insight on the differences between Conn. and Federal courts?

By: evil fizz

evil fizz — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:59:15 +0000

The defendants would then have to argue that they meant herpes in a non-sexual, non-loathsome, cold sore kind of way, while the plaintiffs would have to argue that they did mean it in a loathsome way.

I can see it now. “No, no, your honor. I was referring to herpes simplex I, not II. And when I said slut, I was just referring to the fact that she kisses lots of boys and now they all have cold sores!”

I would be impressed if the judge didn’t literally throw a gavel at them for that argument.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:31:57 +0000

Volokh thinks that no firm would admit to crediting this crap. I’m not sure. I think they may say, “we didn’t want anyone whose personal life could make them a focus of media attention for something other than legal work, and this looked like it could be a distraction.”

By: Jplum

Jplum — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:18:10 +0000

The herpes thing would actually be one of the most difficult bits-I forget the stat, but a huge proportion of North America (80%?) has the herpes virus, since it causes cold sores. So, the chances are good that she actually does have it. The defendants would then have to argue that they meant herpes in a non-sexual, non-loathsome, cold sore kind of way, while the plaintiffs would have to argue that they did mean it in a loathsome way.

BTW-is loathsome the actual legal word? How is it defined?

I wonder if a law firm would be willing to step up and actually say that they didn’t hire one of the women because of this? Or is that un-law-firm-ish?

By: evil fizz

evil fizz — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:56:20 +0000

Thomas, you’re right. This is what I get for skimming the pleading on jurisdiction. As it is, I’m not sure why federal court, although given the fact that Doe I and II are well-represented, I’m sure there’s something.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:44:09 +0000

EF, the complaint bases jurisdiction solely on the copyright claim. And I think the claim raises the most difficult issue, required work to set up (one plaintiff acquired copyright from the creator ahead of the filing — raising a standing question) and probably adds no damages. So … why do all that work to be in Fed court?