Gordon v. Impulse Marketing Group Inc

Filing 42

DECLARATION by Eric Castelli in Support re 40 First MOTION to Dismiss counterclaims and Third Party Defendants filed by James S Gordon, Jr. (McKinley, Douglas)

Download PDF
Gordon v. Impulse Marketing Group Inc Doc. 42 Case 2:04-cv-05125-FVS Document 42 Filed 08/17/2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOUGLAS E. MCKINLEY, JR. Attorney At Law P.O. Box 202 Richland, Washington 99352 Phone 628-0809 Fax (509) 628-2307 THE HONORABLE FRED VAN SICKLE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT RICHLAND JAMES S. GORDON, JR, an individual residing in Benton County, Washington. Plaintiff, v. IMPULSE MARKETING GROUP, INC., a Nevada Corporation Defendants. NO. CV-04-5125-FVS DECLARATION OF ERIC CASTELLI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS Jury Trial Demanded Eric Castelli declares as follows: 1) I am a co-founder and Chief Technology Officer of LashBack LLC, a Missouri Limited Liability Corporation. Lashback was formed in late 2003 to address the problems relating to the failure of email marketers to honor consumer requests to unsubscribe, as required under the federal CAN SPAM Act. 2) As a part of our service, LashBack currently monitors unsubscribe Page 1 of 3 DOUGLAS E. MCKINLEY, JR. Attorney At Law P.O. Box 202 Richland, Washington 99352 Phone 628-0809 Fax (509) 628-2307 Declaration of Eric Castelli in support of plaintiff's motion to dismiss third party defendants ­ No. CV04-5125-FVS Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:04-cv-05125-FVS Document 42 Filed 08/17/2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3) compliance on over 600,000 email senders and is the leading authority in unsubscribe reputation. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sought out LashBack's expertise to assist the FTC in complying with the FTC's reporting obligations under the federal CAN SPAM Act. Responsive to the FTC's inquiries, LashBack provided expert testimony in July 2005 on the effectiveness of and compliance with the CAN SPAM Act. Impulse Marketing Group is included among the 600,000 email senders LashBack currently monitors unsubscribe compliance. 4) LashBack has been documenting Impulse Marketing Group's failure to comply with unsubscribe requests beginning in February 2004 through the date of this declaration. 5) During that time, LashBack has electronically documented over 100 cases where a consumer has attempted to unsubscribe from future Impulse Marketing Group advertisements, but has continued to receive advertisements from Impulse Marketing Group more than 10 business days after the date of the request, as required by the CAN SPAM Act. The most recent of these cases occurred August 8, 2005. 6) Also during this period, LashBack has electronically documented more than 1,000 cases of unsubscribe abuse by Impulse Marketing Group. Unsubscribe abuse occurs when a consumer submits their email address to an email advertiser or sender to unsubscribe, and rather than being removed from that parties send list, the consumer's email address is added to additional lists and begins to receive even more spam. These cases have continued up to the date of this declaration, with the most recent occurring on July 21, 2005. Notice of Appearance ­ No. CV05-0749P Page 2 of 3 DOUGLAS E. MCKINLEY, JR. Attorney At Law P.O. Box 202 Richland, Washington 99352 Phone 628-0809 Fax (509) 628-2307 Case 2:04-cv-05125-FVS Document 42 Filed 08/17/2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Notice of Appearance ­ No. CV05-0749P Page 3 of 3 DOUGLAS E. MCKINLEY, JR. Attorney At Law P.O. Box 202 Richland, Washington 99352 Phone 628-0809 Fax (509) 628-2307 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED this 10th day of August, 2005.

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?