What Do eBay, The “40 Year-Old Virgin,” And The Litigation Privilege Have In Common?

 by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Jonah hillNot much, but please keep reading.

In the movie, the 40-Year-Old-Virgin, an almost unrecognizable Jonah Hill has a very small, but funny, part. He plays a customer at the “We Sell Your Stuff On Ebay” store, which is owned by Steve Carell’s character’s love interest, played by Catherine Keener. According to IMDB.com, Hills plays “Ebay Customer,” who is, to say the least, having trouble understanding how the store works. He wants to buy some "wonderful" shoes that he found at the store. Keener's character explains that she does not actually sell any of the items in her store at the store, she sells them on eBay. Hill's character just doesn't get it, eventually telling Keener's character that he just wanted to buy the shoes and take them home, but that she was "making it extremely difficult" for him to do so.

The recent Appellate Division decision, XCalibur Communications v. Karcich, involved a dispute over the sale of the plaintiff’s merchandise on eBay. No word on whether any of those sales involved shoes like the ones Hill’s character was looking to buy, but the decision helps clarify the scope of the litigation privilege, which is broader than many people think. 

Continue reading “What Do eBay, The “40 Year-Old Virgin,” And The Litigation Privilege Have In Common?”

Havanese Day! Statements on duped dog buyer’s blog not defamatory

by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

HavaneseIn Roberts v. Mintz, defendant bought what he believed was a "healthy, nine-month old, purebred Havanese," but what he got was a two-year old dog that was not a purebred Havanese, and was suffering from various health problems. Defendant complained and plaintiffs offered to refund his money in exchange for the dog. Defendant refused. He wanted the refund, but he wanted to keep the dog because he had already incurred $800 in veterinary fees and because he had become fond of the dog, which he named Moose.

One month after buying Moose, defendant began posting about his experience with plaintiffs on his blog. As you probably guessed, the posts were not positive. Eventually, plaintiffs sued in connection with six specific statements defendant made on his blog, which, among other things, accused plaintiffs of being members of a "notorious ring of South Jersey dog grifters," alleged that plaintiffs had been convicted of animal cruelty, claimed that plaintiffs' lived in a "run down farmhouse with 6 children," and described plaintiffs as "despicable human beings" who ran a "fraudulent puppy mill." Defendants also posted that they had heard from others who were "unwittingly scammed" by plaintiffs. Individuals who claimed to be plaintiffs responded to some of the posts in the comments sections of the blog, calling defendant a "liar" and a "jerk," and claiming that he "suffered from 'rage syndrome,' a behavioral condition that afflicts canines."

In lieu of answering plaintiffs' complaint, defendant moved for summary judgment, seeking to have the complaint dismissed. He also served plaintiffs with a frivolous litigation letter. Plaintiffs cross moved for summary judgment and also sought an injunction preventing defendant from defaming them. The trial court granted defendant's motion. It held that plaintiffs were barred from suing in connection with several of the statements because the one-year statute of limitations had expired. In doing so, it rejected plaintiff's claim that the statute of limitations should have been tolled because defendant had committed a continuous tort. The trial court found that the remaining statements were "opinions, epithets, and hyperbole," and were therefore "not sufficiently factual to be actionable."

Defendant then moved for sanctions, and the trial court granted the motion. Although it did no award defendant all of the sanctions he sought, it did award him $25,000 — assessed against both plaintiffs and their counsel — because plaintiffs filed their complaint without sufficient evidentiary support and because several claims were barred by the statute of limitations. 

Both sides then appealed — plaintiffs seeking to reverse the trial court's decision dismissing their complaint, and defendant seeking to reverse the trial court's decision to award him less in sanctions than what he requested

Continue reading “Havanese Day! Statements on duped dog buyer’s blog not defamatory”

Supreme Court Issues Important Decision On Truth In Lending Act

by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher)

Please check out an article I wrote for law360.com on the U.S. Supreme Court's  recent decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans. Here is the opening paragraph:

On Jan. 13, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans (No. 13-684) and resolved a circuit split on an important issue arising under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §1601-1677 (“TILA”). Under TILA, a borrower has the right to rescind certain loans for up to three years after the loan is consummated. To exercise this right, borrowers must “notify the creditor” of their intention to rescind the loan within three years. The question in Jesinoski was whether a borrower satisfies this requirement by sending written notice to a lender of its intent to rescind or whether the borrower must file a lawsuit within the three-year statutory period. In recent years, a circuit split had developed over this issue. In Jesinoski, the Supreme Court resolved this split, holding that written notice is sufficient.

Check out the rest of the article here.

It Was Not Fun To Stay (Swim) At The YMCA For This Plaintiff Or His Counsel

by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher)

 

A "garden variety slip and fall case" led to an instructive Appellate Division opinion on exculpatory clauses and the requirements of the New Jersey Court Rules governing appellate practice. The plaintiff prevailed on its appeal and had its lawsuit against defendant, which had been dismissed by the trial court, reinstated; but his counsel had to endure a scolding from the Appellate Division in the process.

In Walters v. YMCA, Plaintiff sued for injuries suffered after he slipped on the steps leading from an indoor pool at the YMCA in Newark, New Jersey. The YMCA did not deny that plaintiff slipped, but argued that plaintiff's claims were barred by a broad exculpatory clause in his membership agreement, which purported to hold the YMCA harmless for "any personal injuries or losses sustained . . . on  any YMCA premises or as a result of a YMCA sponsored activit[y]."  The trial court granted the motion and plaintiff appealed.

The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the exculpatory clause was "unenforceable as against public policy" because enforcing it would "eviscerate the common law duty of care owed by defendant to its invitees." The Appellate Division distinguished Walters from a prior decision, Stelluti v. Casapenn Enters., Inc., in which the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an exculpatory clause shielded a health club from injuries sustained by a plaintiff when the handlebars of her stationary bike dislodged and caused her to fall during a spinning class. In that case, the inherently risky nature of the plaintiff's physical activity was "the key consideration . . . to justify enforcing the exculpatory clause at issue." In Walters by contrast, the type of accident — slipping and falling while walking on stairs — "could have occurred in any business setting." Accordingly, the "inherently risky nature of defendant's activities as a physical fitness club was immaterial" to the Appellate Division's analysis.

 

Continue reading “It Was Not Fun To Stay (Swim) At The YMCA For This Plaintiff Or His Counsel”