Logout
Spam Defense Document Repository
INDEX
Falsity & Deception
Injury / Adverse Affects
Vagueness
Transcripts / Audio
Statutes of Limitation
Standing
Spam Plaintiffs
Personal Jurisdiction
Preemption
Sanctions, Fee Awards, Costs
Counter-claims / Third Party Complaints
FALSITY & DECEPTION
Use of Multiple Domain Names not False & Deceptive
Plaintiff plead the use of multiple domain names for the purpose of
bypassing spam filters and blacklists. The court found that such
activity is not false or deceptive under the California spam statute.
Court dismissed with leave to amend.
(p. 2)
Balsam v. Subscriberbase, Inc., et. al.
1-06-CV-066258
Superior Court of Santa Clara County,
California
Filing: Demurrer
Order
(Motion | Opposition | Reply)
__________________________________________________________________________
Use of Multiple Domain Names not False & Deceptive
The court rejected plaintiff's argument that the use of multiple domain
names violates the California spam law. (p. 1)
Balsam v. Expedite Media Group, Inc.,
et. al.
1-06-CV-068304
District Court for Central District of
California
Filing: Order
Order
(Motion | Opposition | Reply)
__________________________________________________________________________
Use of Multiple Domain Names not False & Deceptive
The Court found that the argument that the use of multiple domain names
is false and deceptive, and violative of the California spam statute,
is preempted by the federal CAN-SPAM statute (See *3.)
Kleffman v. Vonage Holdings Corp.
2007 WL 1518650
C.D Cal.
Filing: 12b6
Order (Motion |
Opposition | Reply)
__________________________________________________________________________
Inaccurate IP Addresses in HELO Line Not False & Deceptive
The California legislature, in drafting the spam statute, did not
intend to include the failure of a sender's TCP/IP address back to
resolve back to the TCP/IP addresses listed in the sender's domain name
registration details. (p. 18)
Hypertouch, Inc. v. Stamps.com
AAA No. 74 117 00953 04 SUBR
AAA Arbitration
Decision: Final Award of Arbitrator
Final Award Decision (Motion | Opposition | Reply)
INJURY / ADVERSE AFFECTS
Complaint Silent on Actual Harm Dismissed
Complaint dismissed without prejudice because it was devoid of any
assertions of actual harm dismissed under CAN-SPAM and the Washington
Commercial Electronic Marketing Act ("CEMA"). (See p. 5.)
Complaint dismissed without prejudice because it did not plead the
injury and causation, which are two of the five required elements of
the Washington Consumer Protection Act. (See p. 5.)
James S. Gordon, et. al., v.
Subscriberbase Holdings, Inc. et. al.
2:08-cv-05037-RHW
District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington
Filing: Motion to Dismiss; 12b6
Order
(Motion | Opposition | Reply)
__________________________________________________________________________
Adverse Affects for Professional
Plaintiffs Questions
The court addresses a variety of issues surrounding "adverse
affects" and generally, whether or not injury must be
significant. The court also questions the standing of
professional plainitffs.
Gordon v. Virtumundo
Appeal No. 07-35487
Ninth Circuit
Appeal
Audio File
VAGUENESS
Spam Complaint Must Include Details of Emails
Complaint dismissed without prejudice because it did not plead the
number of emails at issue; the time frame during which emails were
sent; the addresses and domain names that received the emails; and a
brief summary of the factual basis upon which the plaintiff claims
defendant sent the emails. (See p. 6.)
James S. Gordon, et. al., v.
Subscriberbase Holdings, Inc. et. al.
2:08-cv-05037-RHW
District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington
Filing: Motion to Dismiss, 12(b)(6)
Order
(Motion | Opposition | Reply)
TRANSCRIPTS
Small Claims Appeal Hearing
James Wagner v. Intermark Media, Inc.,
et al
No. 2-07-SC-004387
Santa Clara County Small Claims Court
Date: June 18, 2007
Filing: Small Claims Trial
Transcript
__________________________________________________________________________
Small Claims Appeal Hearing
James Wagner v. Intermark Media, Inc.,
et al
No. 2-07-SC-004387
Santa Clara County Small Claims Court
Date: November 18, 2008
Filing: Small Claims Appeal
Transcript
__________________________________________________________________________
Demurrer
to Defendant's Cross-Complaint Hearing
Vantage Interactive, LLC v. Joel
Householter
No. CGC-08-480288
Superior Court of California, San Francisco
Date: December 26, 2008
Filing: Demurrer
Transcript
_________________________________________________________________________
Adverse Affects for Professional
Plaintiffs Questions
The court addresses a variety of issues surrounding "adverse
affects" and generally, whether or not injury must be
significant. The
court also questions the standing of professional plainitffs.
Gordon v. Virtumundo
Appeal No. 07-35487
Ninth Circuit
Appeal
Audio File
STATUTES OF LIMITATION
One Year Statute of Limitation for California Spam Statute
The statute of limitation for the California spam statute (Section
17529.5) is one year. (p 4)
Balsam v. Subscriberbase, Inc., et. al.
1-06-CV-066258
Superior Court of Santa Clara County,
California
Filing: Summary Judgment Motion
Order
(Motion | Opposition | Reply)
STANDING
Plaintff who was not addressee has no standing to sue.
Summary judgment granted to defendants where plaintiff lacked standing
as the "recipient" under California's 17529.5 because he was not the
"addressee" of the emails. Furthermore, Plaintiff's claims for
trespass to chattels failed because the emails did not impede
plaintiff's business.
Infinite Monkeys v. Global Resource
Sytems, Inc., et. al.
01-05-CV-039918
Santa Clara Superior Court, California
Filing: Summary Judgment
Order
(Motion | Opposition | Reply)
ASIS INTERNET
ASIS Internet Services, et. al., v. CONSUMERBARGAINGIVEAWAYS,
LLC, et.
al.
Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted as to those emails received
more than one year prior to the filing of this lawsuit, and denied in
all other respects.
The motion for a more definite statement is granted.
ASIS Internet Services, et. al., v.
CONSUMERBARGAINGIVEAWAYS, LLC, et. al.
08-04856-WHA
District Court for the Northern District of
California
Filing: Motion to Dismiss, 12(b)(6)
Order
(Motion | Opposition | Reply)
GORDON
James S. Gordon, et. al., v. Subscriberbase Holdings, Inc. et.
al.
Complaint dismissed without prejudice because it was devoid of any
assertions of actual harm dismissed under CAN-SPAM and the Washington
Commercial Electronic Marketing Act ("CEMA"). (See p. 5.)
Complaint dismissed without prejudice because it did not plead the
injury and causation, which are two of the five required elements of
the Washington Consumer Protection Act. (See p. 5.)
Complaint dismissed without prejudice because it did not plead the
number of emails at issue; the time frame during which emails were
sent; the addresses and domain names that received the emails; and a
brief summary of the factual basis upon which the plaintiff claims
defendant sent the emails. (See p. 6.)
James S. Gordon, et. al., v.
Subscriberbase Holdings, Inc. et. al.
2:08-cv-05037-RHW
District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington
Filing: 12b6
Order
(Motion | Opposition | Reply)
__________________________________________________________________________
James S. Gordon, Jr., v. Impulse Marketing Group, Inc.
The court denies the multiple third parties' motions to
dismiss defendant Impulse Marketing's claim for injunctive relief.
James S. Gordon, Jr.,
v. Impulse Marketing Group, Inc.
No. CV-04-5125-FVS
District Court for the Eastern District
of Washington
Date: March 9, 2006
Filing: Motions to Dismiss
Order
(Motion | Opposition | Reply)
__________________________________________________________________________
James S. Gordon, Jr., v. Impulse Marketing Group, Inc.
Defendant's answer to the complaint
of James S. Gordon, Jr. and counterclaims against James S. Gordon, Jr.
and third party complaint.
James S.
Gordon, Jr.,
v. Impulse Marketing Group, Inc.
No. CV-04-5125-FVS
District Court for the Eastern District
of Washington
Date: August 1, 2005
Filing: Answer to Complaint and Counterclaims
Answer
and Counterclaims
BALSAM
Daniel Balsam, v. Rapid Response Marketing, LLC
Rapid Response Marketing, LLC contends that the Daniel Balsam’s
complaint should be dismissed or reclassified as limited civil action
because Balsam failed to make a prior demand as required by California
Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) Section 116.320; and because the claim
falls outside the scope of Small Claims jurisdiction.
Daniel Balsam v. Rapid Response
Marketing, LLC
No. 828275
San Francisco Superior Court, California
Filing: Motion
Memorandum (Motion | Opposition | Reply)
WAGNER / HYPERTOUCH
Hypertouch, Inc. v. ValueClick, Inc. et.
al.
ValueClick, Inc. Defendant 's notice of motion and motion for summary
judgment against Hypertouch, Inc.
Hypertouch, Inc. v. ValueClick, Inc. et. al.
No. L C-08-1000
Los Angeles Superior Court, California
Filing: Summary Judgment
Motion (Motion | Opposition | Reply)
PERSONAL
JURISDICTION
Asis Internet Services, et al. v. Genix Marketing Inc., et al.
The Court quashed service of summons on Defendants Edgar Babayan
and Arin Aghajani due to ineffective service and granted Defendants'
request for attorneys' fees.
Asis Internet Services, et al. v.
Genix Marketing Inc, et. al.
DR-081161
Superior Court of Humboldt County,
California
Date: April 6, 2009
Filing: Motion to Quash Service and Request for Attorneys' Fees
Order
(Motion | Opposition | Reply)
PREEMPTION
Craig E. Kleffman. v. Vonage
Holdings Corp., et al.
Brief of amici curiae email sender and provider coalition and
ValueClick, Inc. in support of defendants and appellants concerning the
question certified by the Ninth Circuit Court in Kleffman v. Vonage
Holdings Corp.
Kleffman v. Vonage
Holdings Corp.
No. S169195
Supreme Court of California
Date: June 15, 2009
Filing: Brief
Brief (Motion | Opposition
| Reply)
COUNTER-CLAIMS /
THIRD
PARTY COMPLAINTS
Connexus Corp. and Hydra LLC, v. James
Joseph Wagner and Hypertouch, Inc.
Third Party Complaint filed by Connexus and Hydra against Joe Wagner
and Hypertouch for indemnification and contribution.
Complaint
***
James S. Gordon, Jr., v. Impulse Marketing Group, Inc.
Defendant's answer to the complaint
of James S. Gordon, Jr. and counterclaims against James S. Gordon, Jr.
and third party complaint.
James S.
Gordon, Jr.,
v. Impulse Marketing Group, Inc.
No. CV-04-5125-FVS
District Court for the Eastern District
of Washington
Date: August 1, 2005
Filing: Answer to Complaint and Counterclaims
Answer
and Counterclaims