Xcentric Ventures, LLC et al v. Stanley et al

Filing 22

Reply re 20 Other Notice in Support of Proposed Preliminary Injunction by Plaintiffs Xcentric Ventures, LLC, Ed Magedson, Counter Defendants Xcentric Ventures, LLC, Ed Magedson. (Speth, Maria)

Download PDF
Xcentric Ventures, LLC et al v. Stanley et al Doc. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 JABURG & WILK, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3200 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE SUITE 2000 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 Maria Crimi Speth, #012574 JABURG & WILK, P.C. 3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 (602) 248-1000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, an Arizona corporation, d/b/a "RIPOFFREPORT.COM"; ED MAGEDSON, an individual Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM "BILL" STANLEY, an individual; WILLIAM "BILL" STANLEY d/b/a DEFAMATION ACTION.COM; WILLIAM "BILL" STANLEY d/b/a COMPLAINTREMOVER.COM; WILLIAM "BILL" STANLEY aka JIM RICKSON; WILLIAM "BILL" STANLEY aka MATT JOHNSON; ROBERT RUSSO, an individual; ROBERT RUSSO d/b/a COMPLAINTREMOVER.COM; ROBERT RUSSO d/b/a DEFENDMYNAME.COM; ROBERT RUSSO d/b/a QED MEDIA GROUP, L.L.C.; QED MEDIA GROUP, L.L.C.; QED MEDIA GROUP, L.L.C. d/b/a DEFENDMYNAME.COM; QED MEDIA GROUP, L.L.C. d/b/a COMPLAINTREMOVER.COM; DEFAMATION ACTION LEAGUE, an unincorporated association; and INTERNET DEFAMATION LEAGUE, an unincorporated association; Defendants. Case No: 07-954 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSED PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10297-1/MCS/MCS/588937_v1 Case 2:07-cv-00954-NVW Document 22 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 1 of 4 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 JABURG & WILK, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3200 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE SUITE 2000 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 Plaintiffs hereby reply in support of its form of Proposed Preliminary Injunction. Defendant Russo objects to the proposed injunction related to ROR customers. Plaintiffs have no objection to the Order defining customer, although Plaintiff believes that it is clear that the definition does NOT mean the users of the ripoffreport.com website who have posted information. Because the website permits posting of reports and rebuttals for free, those who use the website for free would not be considered customers. Rather, as set forth in dictionary.com, a customer is "a person who purchases goods or services from another; buyer; patron." Plaintiffs intended for the term to be used in its ordinary sense. Plaintiff only has a handful of customers (those who pay for services) and Defendants are aware of who they are as Defendants sent a mass email to Plaintiff's customers on February 20, 2007. Defendant Russo also takes the position that he has no control over and can not remove the content of the websites mentioned in the proposed form of injunction. Defendant Stanley sent undersigned counsel an email attempting to convince Plaintiffs and the Court that he will not comply with the Court order and that Russo can not make him comply. Yet, his website (Hearing Exhibit 38) indicates that "Speth" only named Russo to get to him. This Court has already ruled that sufficient evidence exists to link Defendant Russo and Defendant Stanley. Defendant Russo, under penalty of perjury, has submitted an additional declaration that contains numerous assertions that are directly contrary to the evidence previously introduced. Additional evidence has since been identified that 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 unequivocally proves that QED Media owns the Interactive Video Systems website that the Stanley website IP addresses link to. The common goal of their scheme has been to decrease the search engine placement of Rip-off Report web pages and there is now proof that Russo and QED Media charge third parties up to $1,500 per month for this service. There is sufficient evidence for this Court to find that Defendants Stanley and Russo are acting in concert and that Stanley, who has made himself difficult to find and judgment proof, takes credit for all of the bad acts, while Russo and QED Media benefit 2 10297-1/MCS/MCS/588937_v1 Case 2:07-cv-00954-NVW Document 22 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 JABURG & WILK, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3200 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE SUITE 2000 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 financially and collect income from Stanley's "services." Defendant Russo's defense in this case will be that he can not control Stanley, while Stanley boldly vows to violate any Court order. The Court should not permit this gamesmanship. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court reject Defendants changes to the proposed injunction and enter the injunction as submitted by Plaintiffs. DATED this 24th day of May, 2007 JABURG & WILK, P.C. s/ Maria Crimi Speth Maria Crimi Speth Attorneys for Plaintiffs Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on May 24, 2007, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing, and for transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Teresa Kay Anderson Snell & Wilmer LLP One Arizona Center 400 E Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004 Michael Kent Dana Snell & Wilmer LLP 400 E Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004-0001 Attorneys for Defendants Robert Russo, QED Media Group, LLC and Internet Defamation League With a COPY of the foregoing emailed on the 24th day of May, 2007, to: William "Bill" Stanley defamationaction@gmail.com geographicalseo@gmail.com 3 10297-1/MCS/MCS/588937_v1 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 2:07-cv-00954-NVW Document 22 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 JABURG & WILK, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3200 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE SUITE 2000 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 With a COPY of the foregoing hand delivered on the 25th day of May, 2007, to: Honorable Neil V Wake United States District Court District of Arizona s/Debra Gower 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 10297-1/MCS/MCS/588937_v1 Case 2:07-cv-00954-NVW Document 22 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 4 of 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?