Ross v. eLightbars LLC
Filing
13
Memorandum Opinion and Order: The Court finds no genuine issue of material fact that Defendant is shielded from liability from Plaintiffs claims in this lawsuit by the express terms of the CDA. Thus, Plaintiffs claims fail as a matter of law and Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment should be, and hereby is, GRANTED. Related document(s) 12 . Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, II on 6/24/2016. (B,TM)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
JARED ROSS, DBA EMERGENCY
VEHICLE PRODUCTS GROUP,
Case Number 3:14 CV 2610
Plaintiff,
v.
Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, II
ELIGHTBARS LLC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
On December 7, 2015, Defendant eLightbars LLC (“eLightbars”) moved for summary
judgment. (Doc. 12). Plaintiff has not opposed the motion.
The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The parties have consented to the
undersigned’s exercise of jurisdiction in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Civil Rule 73.
(Doc. 6). For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is granted.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
Plaintiff is a distributor of certain products manufactured by Star Headlight and Lantern
Company (“Star”) used as emergency warning devices for first responders. Defendant operates a
website as service to emergency personnel which includes a discussion forum for them to discuss
emergency lights and sirens and similar items. Users of the site are bound by a user agreement.
Plaintiff was unhappy about certain postings about him on the site made by third-parties. He
threatened legal action (although a couple of instances of reinstatement and removal are omitted
for the sake of brevity) which ultimately resulted in Plaintiff being banned from the site. He
subsequently filed the instant action containing a single cause of action for libel, on the basis that
Defendant’s site has failed to remove defamatory statements (by others) from its website and has
defamed him by banning Plaintiff from further use of the site.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Federal Civil Rule 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate where there is
“no genuine issue as to any material fact” and “the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Id. When considering a motion for summary judgment, the Court must draw all
inferences from the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Matsushita Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The Court is not permitted to weigh
the evidence or determine the truth of any matter in dispute; rather, the Court determines only
whether the case contains sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably find for the
non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1986). This burden
“may be discharged by ‘showing’ – that is, pointing out to the district court – that there is an
absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 325 (1986).
ANALYSIS
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims are preempted by the Communications Decency
Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230 (“CDA”). The CDA provides, in pertinent part, that “no provider or user of
an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information
provided by another information content provider,” and further provides that “[n]o cause of
action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any state or local law that is
inconsistent with this section.” Defendant’s assertion that its website is an interactive computer
service provider is uncontroverted.
2
Defendant directs the Court to 47 U.S.C. § 230(b)(1), which provides that the underlying
policy of the CDA is the promotion of the continued development of the internet and other
interactive computer services. This section “‘precludes courts from entertaining claims that
would place a computer service provider in a publisher’s role,’ and therefore, bars ‘lawsuits
seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial
functions – such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone, or alter content.’” Dimeo v.
Max, 433 F. Supp. 2d 523, 528 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (quoting Green v. America Online, 318 F. 3d
465, 471 (3d Cir. 2003)).
Moreover, aside from the fact that Defendant is the provider of an interactive computer
service subject to protection against civil liability under the CDA, Defendant asserts that
Plaintiff’s claim is also barred by his acceptance of terms of service which, according to the
uncontroverted evidence before the Court, provide that in exchange for the opportunity to use the
website, Plaintiff agreed that Defendant would not be liable for any damages arising therefrom.
CONCLUSION
The Court finds no genuine issue of material fact that Defendant is shielded from liability
from Plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit by the express terms of the CDA. Thus, Plaintiff’s claims
fail as a matter of law and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be, and hereby is,
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/James R. Knepp, II
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?