Cases

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMES S. GORDON, JR., an  individual doing business as gordonworks.com, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 07-35487 v.  D.C. No. CV-06-00204-JCC VIRTUMUNDO, INC., a Delaware corporation; ADKNOWLEDGE, INC., a OPINION Delaware corporation; and SCOTT LYNN, an i

TALLMAN, Circuit Judge: This case addresses unsolicited commercial e-mail, more commonly referred to as “spam.”1 While ignored by most and re*1045viled by some, spam is largely considered a nuisance and a source of frustration to email users who, at times, must wade through inboxes clogged with messages peddling assorted, and often unwa

OPINION GRABER, Circuit Judge: One social networking company, Face-book, Inc., has sued another, Power Ventures, Inc., over a promotional campaign. Power accessed Facebook users’ data and initiated form e-mails and other electronic messages promoting its website. Initially, Power had implied permission from Face-book. But Facebook sent Power a cease

ORDER The opinion filed July 12, 2016, and published at 828 F.Bd 1068, is amended by the opinion filed concurrently with this order. With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it. The petitio

*813Opinion ZELON, J. INTRODUCTION Appellant Hypertouch, Inc. (Appellant), filed an action alleging that ValueClick, Inc., various ValueClick subsidiaries and PrimaryAds, Inc. (Respondents), violated Business and Professions Code section 17529.5, subdivision (a),1 which prohibits entities from advertisin

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JAMES WARE, Chief Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Facebook, Inc. (“Plaintiff’) brings this action against Defendants1 alleging violations of the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (“CAN-SPAM Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 7701 et

OPINION PETER J. MESSITTE, District Judge. I. Introduction The advent of electronic mail has brought with it a flood of commercial advertising, some of it misleading, false, or deceptive, some even fraudulent, much of it unwanted. That in turn has given rise to federal and state legal initiatives intended to stem the flow of the unwanted, and e

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS ■ Donna M. Ryu, United States Magistrate Judge Defendants 418 Media LLC (“418 Media”) and Lewis Howes, and specially appearing Defendants Keynetics, Inc. (“Key-netics”) and Click Sales, Inc.' (“Click Sales”), separately move pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(2) to dismiss Plaintiff William Silver-stein’s amended complaint. [Docket Nos. 6, 13.] T

Earl WRIGHT, Ramona Holden, Etta Williams, Michael Hamilton, Joseph Eko, Linda Phillips, Elaine Wilhelm, Anthony Gillespie, Mark Carlisle, Vernita Jessie, Cheryl Rife, Sandy Samens, Ruthie Ortiz Soudjian, Plaintiffs, v. PUBLISHERS CLEARING HOUSE, INCORPORATED and Publishers Clearing House, LLC, Defendants.*62Schwaba Law Firm, PLLC, 212 South Tryon

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware No. 13-17102 corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 5:08-cv-05780-LHK v. POWER VENTURES, INC., DBA Power.com, a California corporation; POWER VENTURES, INC., a Cayman Island corporation, Defendants, and STEVEN SURAJ VACHANI, an individual, Def

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware No. 13-17102 corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 5:08-cv-05780-LHK v. POWER VENTURES, INC., DBA Power.com, a California corporation; POWER VENTURES, INC., a Cayman Island corporation, Defendants, and STEVEN SURAJ VACHANI, an individual, Def

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BARRY STIMPSON, No. 18-35833 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 4:17-cv-00431-BLW MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., a Kansas OPINION corporation; MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants-Appelle

OPINION MARK R. HORNAK, District Judge. Christina Anderson (“Anderson”) filed this suit under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”), alleging that she is a disabled person under that statute and that Defendants’ retail stores are public accommodations under the ADA which fail to comply with ADA standards by what she considered to be negatively

MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES C. TURK, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Ponani Sukumar (“Sukumar”) and Southern California Stroke Rehabilitation Associates, Inc. (“SCSRA”)’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 80). Defendant Nautilus, Inc. (“Nautilus”) filed an Opposition (ECF No. 89), to which the Plaintiffs replied (ECF No. 91). The parties were heard on D

ORDER GRANTING TRACFONE’S MOTION TO REOPEN CASE TO ENFORCE VIOLATION OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION URSULA UNGARO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff TracFone Wireless, Inc.’s (“TracFone”), Motion to Reopen Case to Enforce Violation of Permanent Injunction (the “Motion”) [D.E. 110] against Defendant Technopark Co., Ltd. (“Technopark”). Upon review of the Motion a

Opinion MARGULIES, J. Defendant Trancos, Inc. (Trancos), appeals from a judgment awarding statutory damages and attorney fees to plaintiff Daniel L. Balsam under Business and Professions Code1 section 17529 et seq. (Anti-spam Law). Balsam cross-appeals from portions of the judgment denying him relief under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code section 1750 et seq. (CLRA), and

2021 IL 125978 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (Docket No. 125978) WEST BEND MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. KRISHNA SCHAUMBURG TAN, INC., et al., Appellees. Opinion filed May 20, 2021.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge WYNN wrote the opinion, in which Judge NIEMEYER and Judge THACKER joined. WYNN, Circuit Judge: In the late 1990s and early 2000s, legislatures across the country became increasingly concerned about unwanted commercial e-mail colloquially known as “spam.” By 2004, thirty-five states had enacted some form of anti-spam legi

821 F.Supp.2d 1178 (2011) Jeffrey ALTMAN, Plaintiff, v. HO SPORTS COMPANY, INC., dba Hyperlite, and Does 1 to 100, Defendants. No. 1:09-cv-1000 AWI JLT. United States District Court, E.D. California. May 18, 2011. *1180 Illya Hooshang Broomand, Gold River, CA, for Plaintiff. *1181 Rando

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) RJ PRODUCTION COMPANY ) d/b/a DIGIMEDIA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civ. Action No. 10-0584 (ESH) ) NEST