May It Please the Mozzers,
The world is filled with all kinds of nutty people. Mostly, this is a wonderful thing. But sometimes it's not.
The case I want to discuss today involves two lawyers, a messy breakup, and a blog about "Guns, God, Food, Beer, Tools, Politics, and Whining."
Stephen Hogge, a Florida attorney, operates the blog Hog on Ice. He was sued in California by a former Miami School of Law classmate, Fatima dos Santos Fahmy, over statements he made about her on his blog, including calling her a deadbeat, maligning her work ethic, and falsely claiming that she was Hogge's former girlfriend. To get right to it, he falsely labeled her "a mentally ill alcoholic prostitute." Not surprisingly, Ms Fahmy didn't care for these remarks and tried to put her legal education to good use.
Representing herself, she sued Mr. Hogge on her home court, California.
Generally, if you're bringing a lawsuit you've got to sue the defendant where he lives. It's a basic fairness issue. Now, the fairness equation changes if you can successfully argue that the defendant sought you out in your home state to commit his wrongful acts. Why should you have to sue him over there if he went out of his way to do something illegal in your state, right?
Mr. Hogge, also representing himself, asked the California court to dismiss the case because the California court has no jurisdiction over Florida residents. This is a standard legal challenge to multi-state jurisdictional issues.
Ms. Fahmy countered by arguing that Mr. Hogge subjected himself to jurisdiction in California by targeting her for his tortious remarks. He targeted her and she lives in California, ergo, California courts should have jurisdiction over Hogge.
Hogge replied by arguing that he didn't know she lived in California, so he couldn't have been targeting California.
At first, the court agreed with Ms. Fahmy. However, the Court later reconsidered and decided to go ahead and dismiss the lawsuit, but not without issuing a bit of a lecture to both parties for their alleged technical blunders in the case. Ms. Fahmy didn't properly authenticate her documents and Mr. Hogge filed over-length briefs. This proves again the old adage, "a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client."
Technically, this is a win for bloggers who are now less likely to be subjected to out-of-state suits. However, I can't help but feel this is a loss for exes of nutty bloggers everywhere.
Eric Goldman and The Citizen Media Law Project also cover the case.
Best Regards,
Sarah
By: Sarah Bird
Sounds like someone needs a course in online reputation management instead.
Doesn't that leave the doors wide open for careless slander all over the internet as long as you are in a different states.
I agree its interesting to see how the Internet will impact the laws.
Do you guys guys worry that the Internet will develop faster then the laws can adjust?
I read the original article over on Eric's blog a month or so ago. It was interesting for me as one of my own readers was then still under the hammer for a defamation case, in this case he was based in NY, and was sued in California.
When I saw the title of this post a month later, I thought maybe there was something new about the case, or possibly a different interpretation of the events.
What I have just read seems like a paraphrased version of Eric's to such an extent that there is no need to read Eric's original, even down to the "old adage".
I am not a lawyer, and have had no formal legal education, but my understanding is that this could be looked on as plagiarism.
It is possible, because it is a news item, that the facts merely flowed in exactly the same way.
As a blogger (well I have been a little inactive recently) I have had this happen many times where a major publication has picked up one of my stories, and whilst I have been credited with a link, the vast majority of traffic and links have been hijacked.
At the same time, in this case you have made a much wider community aware of many issues that might affect them, and more people have probably read the article than might have clicked through from a link roundup.
I am commenting not to be critical, but to highlight this potential problem, and question where the line should be drawn as I am sure this affects many Mozzers.
Thank you for giving this type of nice article.I am very glad to inform you that it is very understand everything that you said.Really i wish to thank you.The content of the article based on Florida blogger gets California defamation lawsuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and you cover everything that related information.It is nice post with understanding a lot.Judgements seem to be kind of a crap shoot right now, and the sad thing is one of these silly little slap fights is probably going to evolve into major precedent one day.
dont they read the news headlines you always bring the action in the US state that best represents your interests...
certain companies are incorporated in the state of delaware for various benefits such as no income tax...
i think that international aspects might cause more problems, because statement about products which are owned by one firm in one location and presented by another in your country can cause issues