CIOLLI v. IRAVANI et al

Filing 91

ORDER THAT DEFT. LEMLEYS MOTION (DOC. 69) IS GRANTED. ALL CLAIMS AGAINST DEFT. LEMLEY ARE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION. DEFTS CHANIN AND REPUTATIONDEFENDERS MOTION (DOC. 70-71) ARE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS ALL CLAIMS AGAIN ST DEFT. CHANIN ARE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, ETC. DEFT. IRAVANI'S MOTION (DOC. 72) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS OUTLINED HEREIN.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LEGROME D. DAVIS ON 8/27/09. 8/28/09 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(rf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANTHONY CIOLLI v.

HEIDE IRAVANI, et al.

: : : : : : ORDER

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 2:08-cv-02601

AND NOW, this 27th day of August 2009, upon consideration of Defendants Ross Chanin ("Chanin") and ReputationDefender Inc.'s ("ReputationDefender") Motion to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 70-71), Plaintiff Anthony Ciolli's ("Ciolli") Memorandum of Law in Opposition thereto (Doc. No. 79), Defendants Chanin and ReputationDefender's Reply in further support thereof (Doc. No. 84), Defendant Mark Lemley's ("Lemley") Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 69), Plaintiff Ciolli's Memorandum of Law in Opposition thereto (Doc. No. 77), and Lemley's Reply in further support thereof (Doc. No. 86), Defendant Heide Iravani's ("Iravani") Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 72), and Plaintiff Ciolli's Memorandum of Law in Opposition thereto (Doc. No. 78), it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Defendant Lemley's Motion (Doc. No. 69) is GRANTED. All claims against Defendant Lemley are DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendants Chanin and ReputationDefender's Motion (Doc. Nos. 70-71) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: a. All claims against Defendant Chanin are DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff's claim against Defendant ReputationDefender for tortious interference with contractual relations (Count VI) is DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction.

2.

b.

c.

Plaintiff's claims against Defendant ReputationDefender for libel (Count III) and false light (Count V) survive dismissal but only to the extent that they rely on the content on the ReputationDefender website.

3.

Defendant Iravani's Motion (Doc. No. 72) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: a. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Iravani for tortious interference with contractual relations (Count VI) and wrongful initiation of civil proceedings (Count I) are DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Iravani for libel (Count III) and false light (Count V) survive dismissal but only to the extent that they rely on the content on the ReputationDefender website.

b.

BY THE COURT: /S/LEGROME D. DAVIS Legrome D. Davis, J.