Ali,
All you had to do was ask.
ripco.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 16:48:34 -0500
From: Jim Thomas <jthomas@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 2--Story of E-Mail Bomb Suit
((MODERATORS' NOTE: The following San Francisco Chronicle
story was found on the homepage of David S. Bloom, attorney
for a client who sued an alleged e-mail bomber. The text of
the complaint itself is in the next post)).
The San Francisco Chronicle
Lawsuit Charges Malicious 'E-Mail Bombing'
Stephen Schwartz, Chronicle Staff Writer
A South Bay man has sued SRI International, Inc. and an
employee of the firm, alleging that he was maliciously "e-mail
bombed" by 25,000 one-word messages calling him an "idiot"
that were sent from computers at the electronics facility.
Paul Engel, who runs a stock- trading and investment firm,
filed a lawsuit against SRI employee Terje Oseberg and SRI on
December 24 in San Mateo County Superior Court.
Engel claimed in the lawsuit that the messages sent on
September 23 clogged his computer, interrupted his business
and caused an income loss and other damages exceeding $25,000.
SRI is closed for the holidays and its legal department, which
is said to be handling Oseberg and the company's defense,
could not be contacted for comment.
Oseberg did not return calls.
Engel's attorney, David Bloom, said Engel had received the
messages in the aftermath of a "minor disagreement" between
Engel and Oseberg.
The dispute, over description of the Pentium computer chip,
began when Engel and Oseberg exchanged comments on a stock
bulletin board called the "Silicon Investor," said Bloom.
The lawyer said Engel received the one-word messages from
computer addresses at SRI to which Oseberg is believed to have
access as an SRI employee.
According to Bloom, the content of the message is not an
issue.
"This is not a defamation case," he said. "It (the message)
could have said 'beautiful,' or it could have said, 'sorry.'
It could have said anything."
The suit alleges the messages were sent not to communicate at
all, but to harass and punish the recipient over what began as
a small dispute.
"It would be like Siskel sending Ebert 25,000 e-mails because
he didn't like his review of Star Trek," the attorney said.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 16:48:34 -0500
From: Jim Thomas <jthomas@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 3--Text of E-Mail Bomb Suit Complaint
((MODERATORS' NOTE: Here is the text of the Paul Engel's Mail
Bomb complaint. Paul Engel's Attorney, David Bloom, told CuD
that he is confident that a settlement may be reached soon. The
attorney sounds as if he could be a good resource for others
wishing to take action against net abusers)).
==================
David S. Bloom, Esq., SB # 151630
444 Castro St., Suite 430
Mountain View, CA 94041
(415) 960-3103
Attorney for Plaintiff
PAUL ENGEL
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
PAUL ENGEL, an individual,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
a California corporation
TERJE OSEBERG, an individual,
and Does 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
Case No. 399026
Complaint for:
1. Intentional Interference with Prospective business Advantage;
2. Negligent Interference with Business Advantage;
3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;
4. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and
5. Negligence Supervision
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Interference with Prospective Business Advantage v. all
Defendants)
Plaintiff, PAUL ENGEL, alleges, upon information and belief, the
following:
1. Defendant SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC. ("SRI") is, and was at all
relevant times, a California corporation, doing business in the State
of California.
2. Defendant, TERJE OSEBERG ("Oseberg") is, and was at all relevant
times, an individual.
3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each
of the defendants herein was, at all times relevant to this action,
the agent or employee of the remaining defendants and was acting
within the course and scope of that relationship. Plaintiff is further
informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the
defendants herein gave consent to, ratified, and/or authorized the
acts alleged herein by the remaining cross defendants.
4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of
cross-defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and
therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff
will pray leave of this Court to amend this Complaint to allege their
true names and capacities when ascertained.
5. Plaintiff is self-employed as a private investor. His business
primarily involves the trading of stock and other investments using
various services available on the internet. Plaintiff also uses e-mail
to communicate with other stock traders, business contacts and
friends. Plaintiff's receives internet services via an internet
service provider ("ISP") known as "Earthlink."
6. On numerous occasions prior to September 23, 1996, plaintiff was
registered at and used an internet website known as the "Silicon
Investor," which is located at the uniform resource locator ("url"):
"http://www.techstocks.com." Similarly, Defendant Oseberg also was
registered at and used the Silicon Investor website. During the days
up to and including September 23, 1996, while using the website,
plaintiff and Defendant Oseberg had a difference of opinion regarding
a certain company and its product. During this dispute, the parties
posted numerous comments on the website's bulletin board regarding
this product. In at least one of his postings, Defendant Oseberg
referred to plaintiff as an "idiot."
7. On or about September 23, 1996, Defendant Oseberg, and Does 26-50,
"e-mail bombed" the plaintiff by sending him approximately 25,000
individual e-mail messages. The e-mails contained only the word
"idiot." Because of the aforementioned "e-mail bombing", plaintiff's
ability to use the internet and to conduct his daily business was
severely limited until plaintiff removed the offending e-mails from
his ISP's mail server. Moreover, plaintiff was unable to conduct both
his business and personal day to day communications insofar as they
involved the plaintiff's use of e-mail. Ultimately, the removal
process took 2 3 days. However, because of the high volume of e-mails,
plaintiff was unable to filter out potentially valuable messages from
sources other than Defendant Oseberg.
8. The subject e-mails were sent from three different e-mail addresses
or headers: "oseberg@Folpen.sri.com," "terjeo@Folpen.sri.com," and
"terje@Folpen.sri.com." "Folpen.sri.com" refers to the e-mail server
owned, operated and controlled by Defendant SRI, and Does 1-25, which
is Defendant Oseberg's employer.
9. Defendant Oseberg, and Does 26-50, sent the subject e mails during
the course and scope of his employment with Defendant SRI, and Does
1-25.
10. Defendants' actions were done intentionally and maliciously and
with the specific intent to harass and inconvenient plaintiff and to
prevent him from conducting his daily business operations.
11. As the further proximate result of the aforementioned acts,
plaintiff was prevented from conducting his day to day business and
suffered damages in a sum not yet ascertained but in excess of the
minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court.
12. The above described actions taken by the defendants were done with
malice and thus an award of punitive damages is justified.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Interference with Prospective Business Advantage v. all
Defendants)
13. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 to 11.
14. Defendants, and each of them, should have known that the
aforementioned e-mail bombing would cause severely interfere
plaintiff's ability to conduct his daily business operations.
15. As the proximate result of the aforementioned acts, plaintiff was
prevented from conducting his day to day business and suffered damages
in a sum not yet ascertained but in excess of the minimum
jurisdictional limit of this Court.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress v. all Defendants)
16. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 to 10.
17. Defendants, and each of them, knew that the aforementioned e-mail
bombing would cause plaintiff extreme emotional distress.
18. As the proximate result of the aforementioned acts, plaintiff
suffered mental anguish and emotional distress in excess of the
jurisdictional minimum of this Court.
19. The above described actions taken by the defendants were done with
malice and thus an award of punitive damages is justified.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress v. all Defendants)
20. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 to 10.
21. Defendants, and each of them, should have known that the
aforementioned e-mail bombing would cause plaintiff extreme emotional
distress.
22. As a proximate cause of the conduct of the defendants, plaintiffs
suffered humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress and have
been injured as follows.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligent Supervision v. Defendant SRI and Does 1-25)
23. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 to 10.
24. Defendants SRI, and Does 1-25, negligently supervised Defendant
Terje Oseberg, and Does 26-50.
25. As a proximate cause of the conduct of the defendants, plaintiffs
suffered humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress and have
been injured as follows.
26. As the further proximate result of the aforementioned acts,
plaintiff was prevented from conducting his day to day business and
suffered damages in a sum not yet ascertained.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, and each of
them, as follows:
1. For general damages according to proof but in excess of the
jurisdictional minimum of this Court;
2. For loss of income according to proof;
3. For punitive damages
4. For costs of the suit herein incurred; and
5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
Dated: December 24, 1996
__________/S/______________
DAVID SETH BLOOM
Attorney for Plaintiff PAUL ENGEL............
.....................................................................
Wow, Paul was really hit by the e-maila bomber.
Called an Idiot 25,000 times....
Now you know where I came up with Paul running an Investment firm which he soundly denied. Maybe they had to come up with that to justify all the losses paul incured as a result of having his e-mail clogged up.
Jim
|
