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: scion who wrote (11504)	9/28/2011 12:40:24 PM
From: the_worm06	Respond to of 12465

Eade never appeared at the hearing oops!

To: scion who wrote (11504)	10/12/2011 11:09:19 AM
From: scion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

Investors Hub Awarded Judgment Against Kenneth Eade U.S. Federal Court dismisses Eade’s complaint against iHub, denies Eade leave to amend and orders Eade to pay legal fee award. Tallahassee, FL (PRWEB) October 12, 2011 prweb.com InvestorsHub.com, Inc. (“iHub”) is pleased to announce that the U.S. Federal Court for the Central District of California has ruled in its favor in the lawsuit filed by Kenneth G. Eade, Case #2:11-CV-01315-JAK. The court also awarded iHub $49,000 in legal fees incurred in defending the lawsuit, ordering Eade to pay iHub within 30 days. Kenneth Eade sued iHub and 10 John Doe posters in February of this year for allegedly defamatory posts made on the iHub website. iHub raised several meritorious defenses, including that the comments made by the John Doe posters were protected speech under the First Amendment and that immunity was provided by the Communications Decency Act. In his 12-page ruling, The Honorable John A. Kronstadt granted iHub’s motion to strike Eade’s complaint in its entirety and without leave for him to amend. The court’s ruling effectively dismissed the action against the John Doe posters as well. Dave Lawrence, spokesperson for iHub commented, “This federal court ruling finding in favor of iHub and awarding legal costs should serve as notice to others who would engage in frivolous litigation, try to plead around CDA immunity or attempt to chill the public’s exercise of freedom of speech.” prweb.com