Joude et al v. Wordpress Foundation et al

Filing 29

Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler denying 23 Motion for Attorney Fees. (lblc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

Northern District of California

9

San Francisco Division

10

ALEXANDRE FAYCAL JOUDE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES

v.

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

No. C 14-01656 LB

13

WORDPRESS FOUNDATION, et al.,

14

[Re: ECF No. 23]

Defendants.
___________________________________/

15
INTRODUCTION

16
17

Plaintiffs Alexandre Fayçal Joude and Daniel Joude sued WordPress Foundation and

18

Automattic, Inc. to compel them to take down an anonymously-written blog about Plaintiffs and

19

their family. Complaint, ECF No. 1.1 Plaintiffs dismissed WordPress from the action on April 2,

20

2014. Motion, ECF No. 11, at 8 n.1. Automattic removed the action to this court and now moves

21

for an order granting judgment on the pleadings. Id. at 6. On July 3, 2014, the court granted

22

Automattic’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing Plaintiffs’ first and third claims

23

with prejudice and their second claim without prejudice. ECF No. 19. Automattic now moves for

24

an award of attorney’s fees as the prevailing party on Plaintiffs’ first and third claims. Motion,

25

ECF No. 25. The court finds this matter suitable for determination without a hearing under Civil

26

Local Rule 7-1(b) and DENIES Automattic’s motion.

27
28

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronicallygenerated page numbers at the top of the document.
C 14-01656 LB
ORDER

STATEMENT

1
2

I. BACKGROUND

3

In March 2014, Plaintiffs, who are citizens and residents of France, learned of a blog at the

the Blog is about Plaintiffs and other members of the Joude family and published anonymously.

6

Id. ¶¶ 11, 13. On March 12, 2014, through counsel in France, Plaintiffs sought an order from the

7

Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris (the “High Court of Paris”) directing Automattic and

8

WordPress to remove the Blog. Compl., ECF No. 1-2, ¶ 15; Davis Declaration, Ex. A, ECF No. 1-

9

3 at 17, translated at Ex. B., ECF No. 1-3, at 24. The High Court of Paris granted Plaintiffs’

10

request and issued an order stating that Automattic and WordPress must “take all necessary or

11

useful measures for the immediate removal of the blog entitled ‘Alexandre Fayçal Joude/the

12
For the Northern District of California

web address http://thejoudes.wordpress.com (“the Blog”). Id. ¶ 11. Titled “The Hoodwankers,”

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

Hoodwankers’ and ‘Danny Joude/the Hoodwankers’” within three months. Complaint, Ex. A,

13

ECF No. 1-2, at 12, translated at Ex. B., ECF No. 1-2 at 14.

14

On March 24, 2014, Plaintiffs filed this suit in the Superior Court of the State of California for

15

San Francisco County, raising three causes of action. Complaint, ECF No. 1-2, at 3. Plaintiffs’

16

Complaint sought declaratory relief (1) recognizing and enforcing the French Order directing

17

Automattic and WordPress to remove the Blog, id. ¶¶ 25-30, and (2) establishing that Automattic

18

and WordPress are bound by their own Terms of Service, id. ¶¶ 31-37. Plaintiffs’ third cause of

19

action alleged misappropriation of likeness. Id. ¶¶ 38-43.

20

On April 10, 2014, Automattic removed the Action to this court. Notice of Removal, ECF No.

21

1. Automattic asserted federal question jurisdiction for the first claim pursuant to the Securing the

22

Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage (“SPEECH”) Act, 28 U.S.C.

23

§§ 4101–4105. Id. ¶¶ 8-11. Automattic asserted supplemental jurisdiction for the second two

24

causes of action. Id. at 4. The court dismissed claims one and three with prejudice, and entered

25

judgment for Automatic on those claims. Order, ECF No. 19; Judgment, ECF No. 21. Automattic

26

now contends that it is entitled to attorneys’ fees under the SPEECH Act, 28 U.S.C § 4105.

27

//

28

//

C 14-01656 LB
ORDER

2

1

ANALYSIS

2

The SPEECH Act, Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 4101–4105, governs the enforcement of foreign

3
4

defamation judgments in United States courts. The Act’s attorneys’ fees provision provides that

6

In any action brought in a domestic court to enforce a foreign judgment for defamation,
including any such action removed from State court to Federal court, the domestic court shall,
absent exceptional circumstances, allow the party opposing recognition or enforcement of the
judgment a reasonable attorney’s fee if such party prevails in the action on a ground specified
in section 4102 (a), (b), or (c).

7

28 U.S.C. § 4105. Sections 4102(a), (b), and (c) set forth three conditions under which a court may

8

recognize a foreign defamation judgment. That is, a court may not recognize a foreign defamation

9

judgment unless the court determines that the defamation law the foreign court applied was

5

press, § 4102(a)(1), and (b) the due process requirements of the U.S. Constitution, § 4102(b)(1). In

12
For the Northern District of California

consistent with (a) the First Amendment and relevant state laws governing freedom of speech and

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

addition, a court may not enforce a foreign defamation judgment “against the provider of an

13

interactive computer service, as defined in section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47

14

U.S.C. § 230) unless . . . the judgment would be consistent with section 230 if the information that is

15

the subject of such judgment had been provided in the United States.” § 4102(c)(1).

16

Automattic contends that it is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 4105 because

17

Plaintiffs’ first claim, which sought to enforce the French Order to remove the Blog, falls under the

18

SPEECH Act. Plaintiffs respond that Automattic does not meet the requirements of section 4015

19

because it did not prevail on the first claim “on a ground specified in section 4102 (a), (b), or (c).”

20

The court agrees with Plaintiffs.

21

In response to Automattic’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, Plaintiffs stated their

22

willingness to dismiss their first cause of action with prejudice. Opp’n to Motion, ECF No. 13 at 4.

23

In granting Automattic’s motion as to the first claim and dismissing it with prejudice, the court

24

expressly refrained from reaching any holding about the application of the SPEECH Act, stating that

25

in light of the fact that “Plaintiffs agree to dismiss this claim, the court need not decide whether the

26

SPEECH Act prohibits enforcement of the French Order.” Order, ECF. No. 19 at 6, n.2. The court

27

finds that Automattic did not prevail on Plaintiffs’ first claim on any ground specified in section

28

4102. Accordingly, Automattic’s motion for fees on this basis is DENIED.

C 14-01656 LB
ORDER

3

1

Automatic also moves for fees in connection with Plaintiffs’ third claim, in which they alleged

as to this claim, holding that under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996,

4

Automattic has immunity from Plaintiffs’ misappropriation of likeness claim relating to content

5

created by the anonymous blogger. Order, ECF No. 19, at 12. Automattic’s motion for fees on the

6

third claim rests entirely on its alleged status as a prevailing party on the first claim. It argues that

7

“Plaintiffs’ first and third causes of action are premised on the same facts and arise from the same

8

series of events or circumstances” and as such, “are inexorably intertwined.” Motion, ECF No. 23 at

9

6. Automatic does not proffer any independent grounds for an award of attorney’s fees with respect

10

to the third claim. Having concluded that Automattic is not entitled to fees for Plaintiffs first claim

11

under the SPEECH Act, the court also DENIES its motion for attorney fees as to Plaintiffs’ third

12
For the Northern District of California

misappropriation of likeness. The court granted Automattic’s motion for judgment on the pleadings

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

claim.

13
14
15

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Automattic’s motion for attorney’s fees is DENIED. This disposes of
ECF No. 23.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: August 29, 2014

18

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 14-01656 LB
ORDER

4