Jane Doe v. Match.com

Filing 6

First EX PARTE APPLICATION for Temporary Restraining Order as to prohibiting defendant Match.com from allowing further member contact until such time as an appropriate screening process has been implemented prohibiting known sex offenders from registering on the Match.com dating website filed by Plaintiff Jane Doe, et al. Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1-2)(Webb, Mark).

1
2
3

MARK L. WEBB (STATE BAR NO. 67959)
LAW OFFICE OF MARK L. WEBB
333 PINE STREET, 5TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
TEL: [phone]

4
5
6

Attorney for Plaintiffs
JANE DOE, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated

7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

JANE DOE, individually and on behalf )
of all others similarly situated,
) Case No.: CV11-03795 SVM (JENx)
)
) PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE
Plaintiffs,
) APPLICATION FOR A
) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
v.
ORDER TO
) ORDER AND FOR PRELIMINARY
SHOW CAUSE RE
) INJUCTION
MATCH.COM,
)
) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
Defendants.
) AUTHORITIES;
)
) DECLARATION OF MARK L.
) WEBB
)
)
)
)
)
)

24
25
26
27
28

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, Plaintiffs Jane Doe, and
behalf of all others similarly situated in the above-titled action hereby apply Ex
Parte for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Order to Show Cause why a
1
Plaintiff’s Notice of Ex Parte Application and Ex Parte Application for a TRO and Order to Show Cause re a Preliminary
Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Mark L. Webb

1

preliminary injunction should not issue prohibiting defendant Match.com from

2

allowing further member contact until such time as an appropriate screening

3

process has been implemented prohibiting known sex offenders from registering

4

on the Match.com dating website.

5

This application is made on the following grounds:

6

1.

Jane Doe is a victim of a serious sexual assault by a Match.com

7

member who was allowed to use Match.com as a sexual predator even

8

though he had previous convictions for sex offenses, and even though

9

these previous convictions were easily detectable.

10

2.

11

Match.com has been officially contacted through their legal counsel
and their chairman of the board at IAC, and a request has been made

12

that they should voluntarily employ basic and inexpensive screening

13

for similar prior convicted sex offenders who are using their site for

14

sexual prey.

15
16

3.

As of Sunday, April 17, 2011, Match.com informed counsel for

17

Plaintiff, Mark Webb, which they were going to announce publically

18

via media alert that they were going to commence sex offender

19

screening within 60-90 days. A copy of the media alert is attached as

20

Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Mark L. Webb. Match.com also, in the

21

same phone call through their attorney, told Mr. Webb that they

22

would use the federal sex offender data bank to check for prior sex

23

offenses.

24
25
26
27

4.

Plaintiffs maintain that Match.com’s proposal and announcement of
instituting sex offender screening within 60-90 days through use of
the federal sex offender data bank is insufficient to protect against a
known, grave, imminent risk of danger to female members of

28

2
Plaintiff’s Notice of Ex Parte Application and Ex Parte Application for a TRO and Order to Show Cause re a Preliminary
Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Mark L. Webb

1

Match.com who continue to use defendants online dating site for

2

meeting companions. Plaintiffs attach a letter from a reputable private

3

investigative screening company attesting to the fact that more

4

comprehensive screening would be not only more effective, but

5

economical, and that such screening could be implemented within a

6

week, as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Mark L. Webb.

7

5.

Because there continues to be ongoing use of the Match.com dating

8

site by millions of users, and because there is no valid reason to wait

9

60-90 days to implement adequate screening measures, this court is

10

being asked to order Match.com to refrain from allowing use of its

11

matching service until this adequate and prompt screening can be

12

accomplished to avoid serious, unnecessary risk of rape.

13

6.

14

On information and belief, Plaintiffs submit that other sexual
predators are currently using this dating site.

15

7.

16

Department of Justice statistics show that millions of women are date

17

raped each year. Match.com has yet not released its statistics on a

18

number of date rapes that happen each year on Match.com.
8.

19

Since Match.com has essentially admitted that sex offender

20

screening is necessary, therefore Plaintiffs respectfully request that

21

this TRO issue forthwith.

22

This application is based upon this Application, the accompanying

23

Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Declaration of Mark L. Webb, the

24

Complaint in this action, this action, and such further evidence and argument that

25

may be presented by plaintiff.

26
27

///
///

28

3
Plaintiff’s Notice of Ex Parte Application and Ex Parte Application for a TRO and Order to Show Cause re a Preliminary
Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Mark L. Webb

1

Notice of this application has been provided to Defendants as detailed in the

2

attached Declaration of Mark L. Webb.

3

DATED: May 4, 2011

THE LAW OFFICE OF MARK L. WEBB

4

By:

5
6

/s/
______________________________
Mark L. Webb

7
8
9
10
11
12

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
A temporary restraining order is the appropriate legal remedy when a great
risk of danger to members of the public or property is eminent. This remedy is
proper when an existing situation is brought to the Court’s attention that requires

13
14
15
16

an immediate halt to a practice that threatens public safety. Plaintiff complied with
the requirements of Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §527 as well as Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 65.

17

In the case at bar, it is without question that Plaintiff Jane Doe went on a

18

date with a man from Match.com, who had a known prior sex offense criminal

19

record. Had appropriate, inexpensive screening methods been employed by

20

Defendant, Match.com, this sex offender would have been screened out of the

21

dating population. Instead, without the asked for screening relief, Jane Doe was the

22

victim of a violent rape in 2010 by this registered sex offender.

23

It is believed that numerous other convicted sex offenders are actively using

24

Match.com as a vehicle to date single women who are unaware of their history and

25

are therefore pray to these predators.

26
27

This is precisely the situation that the law affords and even requires an order
issue to prevent further avoidable rapes and sex offenses to unwitting females.

28

4
Plaintiff’s Notice of Ex Parte Application and Ex Parte Application for a TRO and Order to Show Cause re a Preliminary
Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Mark L. Webb

Match.com is the largest on-line dating site in the world. It has 20 million

1
2

registered members and advertises that one in every five relationships now begins

3

from on-line dating. Clearly, since Match.com is a billion dollar company and

4

growing, it is incumbent on the Honorable Court to require Match.com to employ

5

basic inexpensive screening techniques readily available to Match.com.
If the Courts have issued TRO’s to avoid the irreversible damage to property

6
7

(See Central Coast Baptist Ass'n v. First Baptist Church of Las Lomas (2007) 171

8

Cal.App.4th 822 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 100), certainly a TRO is warranted to prevent the

9

irreparable harm to a human being who, once raped, will never be the same again.

10
11
12

For the reasons above, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant the
ex parte application as follows: First, Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an
immediate Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting defendant Match.com from

13
14
15
16
17

signing up further members until such time as a effective screening process has
been implemented; second, Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an Order to Show
Cause setting a schedule for briefing and hearing on a preliminary injunction.
DATED: May 4, 2011

THE LAW OFFICE OF MARK L. WEBB

18

By:

19
20
21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

/s/
______________________________
Mark L. Webb

///

26
27

///
///

28

5
Plaintiff’s Notice of Ex Parte Application and Ex Parte Application for a TRO and Order to Show Cause re a Preliminary
Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Mark L. Webb

DECLARATION OF MARK L. WEBB

1
2

I, Mark L. Webb, declare:

3

1.

4
5

I am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California, and am

the attorney of record for the Plaintiffs in this action.
2.

After being told by Match.com corporate counsel Ms. Marshall Dye in

6

a phone call on approximately April 14, 2011, that defendant Match.com was not

7

willing to consider screening members for sex offenses, I was called on April 17,

8

2011 by California counsel Robert Platt at my home. On that date, he informed me

9

that since the complaint in this action had been filed, defendant Match.com had

10
11
12

reevaluated their position and a media alert would issue announcing that
Match.com had decided to implement screening of sex offenders within 60-90 days
by using the Federal Sex Offender Data Bank. A copy of said media alert is

13
14
15
16

attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
3.

Since that time I’ve had several communications with Mr. Platt asking

that Match.com at least consider a quicker and more effective means of screening,

17

since I had been informed by a reliable investigative company that there is no need

18

to wait such a long period of time, and that there are much more effective,

19

economical ways to check for sex offenders. A copy of the investigative

20

company’s position is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Mr. Platt refused to even meet

21

and confer, therefore compelling me to make this instant request for a TRO in the

22

interest of public safety.

23

4.

In light of the repeated refusals to meet and confer, on Monday May

24

2, 2011 at 2:40 p.m., PST, I notified Ms. Marshall Dye by leaving a message on

25

her voicemail of my intention to ask for a TRO on Thursday, May 5, 2011 in the

26
27

courtroom of the Honorable Carl West, department 323, Central Civil West in Los
Angeles, CA. When I learned on May 3, 2011 that this case had been removed to

28

6
Plaintiff’s Notice of Ex Parte Application and Ex Parte Application for a TRO and Order to Show Cause re a Preliminary
Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Mark L. Webb

1

this Court, thereafter on Wednesday May 4, 2011 emailed attorney James Laska of

2

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, 11355 West Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, CA

3

90064, [phone], [e-mail], counsel of record, that we were going

4

to file TRO documents with this court the contents of which would be roughly the

5

same as those we had intended to file for state court. Therefore, I have complied

6

with the notice requirement of this Court.

7

The exhibits attached to this request are as follows:

8

1. The media alert by Match.com of April 17, 2011

9

2. Letter from Russell Mallette describing more effective and rapid means

10
11
12

to perform sex offender screening.
These exhibits are to the best of my knowledge and information true and
correct and could be supported by admissible evidence should this Court so desire.

13
14
15
16

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
California the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED: May 4, 2011

By:

17

/s/
______________________________
Mark L. Webb

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

7
Plaintiff’s Notice of Ex Parte Application and Ex Parte Application for a TRO and Order to Show Cause re a Preliminary
Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declaration of Mark L. Webb