Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: EL KABONG!!! who wrote (3266)	6/6/2002 7:22:48 PM
From: Mighty_Mezz	Respond to of 12465

Court jester/investment advisor - what a great gig! Where do I apply? LOL Oh a victorious note, the first amendment isn't dead yet. ========= No Divine Intervention Here; Falwell Loses Bid to Shut Down Parody Web Site World Intellectual Property Organization Rules in Favor of Illinois Resident WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Rev. Jerry Falwell today lost his bid to silence a critic who created a Web site that uses Falwell's name in its address and parodies the reverend's statements. At issue is a noncommercial Web site established by Illinois resident Gary Cohn that mocks Falwell for blaming the September 11 attacks on the supposed moral decline of America and parodies the way Falwell cites Bible verses to make moral judgments. The site can be found under the domain names jerryfalwell.com and jerryfallwell.com. Falwell had claimed to hold a trademark on his name because of his fame and argued that the site wasn't parody. He had asked the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to strip the site of its domain names. However, in a 2-1 vote, a WIPO mediation panel today ruled against Falwell, saying that Falwell had failed to show that his name - even though well-known - has been used as a trademark to label particular goods or services. Without trademark status, the use of a name in a Web site is considered a legitimate, noncommercial fair use. In fact, the panel noted, Falwell has been careful to avoid the suggestion that he has exploited his name for commercial reasons and had told the WIPO that he has used his name principally to advance his religious views. Further, "[w]hether regarded as a parody, satire, or critical commentary, the majority [of the panel] believes that legitimate noncommercial fair use commentary is involved," the panel wrote. "Whether the commentary is in good taste, whether it is funny, whether it is effective, all is beside the point." A copy of the ruling is available at citizen.org. "This is a victory for First Amendment rights on the Internet," said Paul Alan Levy, the Public Citizen attorney who represented Cohn in the case. "Without the domain name, the Web site would likely be much harder to find. We are pleased that the panel agreed that Mr. Cohn has a right to use Falwell's name when criticizing him, and has every right to do so on the Internet. Also, Public Citizen thanks Philadelphia lawyer John Berryhill for his assistance in defending this case."

To: EL KABONG!!! who wrote (3266)	6/14/2002 1:55:17 AM
From: Janice Shell	Respond to of 12465

SNICKERISSIMO!! Judge Blanche Manning has just joined my Judicial Pantheon. Right up there with Sam Kent! ORDER Plaintiff Jay Marvin has filed a complaint aginst Janice Shell / aka JANICE456, John Doe I / aka SCION, and John Doe II / aka SALMESHEXNY, invoking diversity of citizenship grounds. See 28 U.S.C. 1332. This matter is before the court as Ms. Shell has filed a motion to extend time to answer or otherwise plead. The court notes that the plaintiff appears not to have provided the court with a courtesy copy of its complaint, as the court is seeing this case for the first time today. While clerical error is a possibility, the court reminds all parties to ensure that the court receives a courtesy copy of each and every filing. With that said, the court turns to the merits. It has reviewed the jursisdictional allegations in the complaint pursuant to Wisconsin Knife Works v. National Metal Crafters, 781 F.2nd 1280 (7th Cir. 1986) (“the first thing a federal judge should do when a complaint is filed is check to see that federal jurisdiction is properly alleged”). The plaintiff alleges that he is a citizen of Illinois and that defendant Janice Shell is a citizen of Pennsylvania. So far, so good. See Guaranty National Title Co., Inc. v. J.E.G. Associates, 101 F.3d 57, 59 (7th Cir. 1996) (citizenship, not residency, is what matters for diveristy jurisdiction so “[w]hen the parties allege residence but not citizenship, the court must dismiss the suit”). He also alleges, upon information and belief, that defendants John Doe I / aka SCION and John Doe II / aka SALMESHEXNY are not citizens of Illinois or Pennsylvania. The allegations as to the John Doe defandants are not enough to establish that diversity jurisdiction exists. First, allegations of citizenship that are made “upon information and belief” are insufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which imposes a duty of reasonable pre-complaint inquiry on the plaintiff. Multi-M Int’l, Inc. v. Paige Med. Supply Co., 142 F.R.D. 150, 152 (N.D. Ill. 1992), citing Bankers Trust Co. v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 959 F.2d 677, 683 (7th Cir. 1992). Second, the record must affirmatively establish the citizenship of every party, so a complaint must specify the identiy and citizenship of each party. See Guaranty National Title Co. v. J.E.G. Associates, 101 F.3d at 59. Hence, “unknown defendants (who are necessarily of unknown citizenship) foreclose any possible allegation of total diversity.” Bryant v. Yellow Freight Systems, 989 F. Supp. 966, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1997); see also Wild v. Subscrption Plus, Inc., No. 01-3406, --F.3.d—(7th Cir. May 31, 2002) (“how can the plaintiffs know that the company’s principal place of business is not in Lousiana if they don’t know where its principal place of business is? We doubt that the plaintiffs conducted a census of all businesses whose principal place of business is in Louisiana and discovered that the plaintiff is not one of them”). Therefore, the court finds that the allegations supporting diversity jurisdiction are insufficient. Accordingly, the court dismisses the complaint, sua sponte, without prejudice. The plaintiff may file an amended complaint, consistent with this order and Rule 11, by no later than July 1, 2002. this means that Ms. Shell’s motion for an extension of time to answer or otherwise plead is stricken as moot.

To: EL KABONG!!! who wrote (3266)	6/14/2002 1:59:10 AM
From: Janice Shell	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 12465

SNICKERISSIMO!! Judge Blanche Manning has just joined my Judicial Pantheon. Right up there with Sam Kent! ORDER Plaintiff Jay Marvin has filed a complaint aginst Janice Shell / aka JANICE456, John Doe I / aka SCION, and John Doe II / aka SALMESHEXNY, invoking diversity of citizenship grounds. See 28 U.S.C. 1332. This matter is before the court as Ms. Shell has filed a motion to extend time to answer or otherwise plead. The court notes that the plaintiff appears not to have provided the court with a courtesy copy of its complaint, as the court is seeing this case for the first time today. While clerical error is a possibility, the court reminds all parties to ensure that the court receives a courtesy copy of each and every filing. With that said, the court turns to the merits. It has reviewed the jursisdictional allegations in the complaint pursuant to Wisconsin Knife Works v. National Metal Crafters, 781 F.2nd 1280 (7th Cir. 1986) (“the first thing a federal judge should do when a complaint is filed is check to see that federal jurisdiction is properly alleged”). The plaintiff alleges that he is a citizen of Illinois and that defendant Janice Shell is a citizen of Pennsylvania. So far, so good. See Guaranty National Title Co., Inc. v. J.E.G. Associates, 101 F.3d 57, 59 (7th Cir. 1996) (citizenship, not residency, is what matters for diveristy jurisdiction so “[w]hen the parties allege residence but not citizenship, the court must dismiss the suit”). He also alleges, upon information and belief, that defendants John Doe I / aka SCION and John Doe II / aka SALMESHEXNY are not citizens of Illinois or Pennsylvania. The allegations as to the John Doe defendants are not enough to establish that diversity jurisdiction exists. First, allegations of citizenship that are made “upon information and belief” are insufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which imposes a duty of reasonable pre-complaint inquiry on the plaintiff. Multi-M Int’l, Inc. v. Paige Med. Supply Co., 142 F.R.D. 150, 152 (N.D. Ill. 1992), citing Bankers Trust Co. v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 959 F.2d 677, 683 (7th Cir. 1992). Second, the record must affirmatively establish the citizenship of every party, so a complaint must specify the identiy and citizenship of each party. See Guaranty National Title Co. v. J.E.G. Associates, 101 F.3d at 59. Hence, “unknown defendants (who are necessarily of unknown citizenship) foreclose any possible allegation of total diversity.” Bryant v. Yellow Freight Systems, 989 F. Supp. 966, 968 (N.D. Ill. 1997); see also Wild v. Subscrption Plus, Inc., No. 01-3406, F.3 (7th Cir. May 31, 2002) (“how can the plaintiffs know that the company’s principal place of business is not in Lousiana if they don’t know where its principal place of business is? We doubt that the plaintiffs conducted a census of all businesses whose principal place of business is in Louisiana and discovered that the plaintiff is not one of them”). Therefore, the court finds that the allegations supporting diversity jurisdiction are insufficient. Accordingly, the court dismisses the complaint, sua sponte, without prejudice. The plaintiff may file an amended complaint, consistent with this order and Rule 11, by no later than July 1, 2002. this means that Ms. Shell’s motion for an extension of time to answer or otherwise plead is stricken as moot.