Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. Dirty World Entm't Recordings, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky

August 12, 2013

SARAH JONES, PLAINTIFF
v.
DIRTY WORLD ENTERTAINMENT RECORDINGS, LLC, ET AL., DEFENDANTS

For Sarah Jones, also known as Jane Doe, Plaintiff: Eric C. Deters, LEAD ATTORNEY, Eric Deters & Partners, P.S.C. - Independence, Independence, KY; Geoffrey P. Damon, PRO HAC VICE, Law Offices of Blake R. Maislin, Cincinnati, OH.

For Hooman Karamian, also known as Nik Richie, also known as Corbin Grimes, Dirty World, LLC, doing business as TheDirty.Com, Defendants: Alexander C. Ward, LEAD ATTORNEY, Huddleston, Bolen, LLP - Ashland, Ashland, KY; Alexis B. Mattingly, Huddleston, Bolen, LLP - Huntington WV, Huntington, WV; David Gingras, PRO HAC VICE, Gingras Law Office, PLLC, Phoenix, AZ.

OPINION

William O. Bertelsman, United States District Judge.

Page 819

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Background

At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence in the second trial of this case, the defendants made a timely motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50.

The motion was primarily based on the argument that the defendants were immune under the Communications Decency Act (" CDA" ), 47 U.S.C. § 230. The Court denied the motion for the same reasons expressed in its earlier opinion addressing this issue. See Jones v. Dirty World Entm't Recordings, LLC, 840 F.Supp.2d 1008 (E.D. Ky. 2012).

The jury hung in the first trial of this case, which necessitated a second trial. The evidence in both trials regarding the claimed immunity was essentially the same as that described in the Court's earlier opinion. The case was submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $38,000.00 compensatory damages and $300,000.00 punitive damages. [1] (Doc. 207).

The Court now files this supplemental Memorandum Opinion to explain further its reasons for denying defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law.

Analysis

A. The precedents support the proposition that the CDA provides only a sort of qualified immunity that can be lost by the site's intentionally developing and/or materially contributing to the illegal or objectionable material.

Throughout these proceedings, counsel for defendants has ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.