US State Law State Constitutions State Codes State Case Law California Florida New York Texas More... Pioneer Nat'l Bank, 867 F.2d 520, 523-24 (9th Cir. 1989). Ct. 2329, 138 L. The Court further DENIES Plaintiffs' request for a Rule 56(f) continuance of the summary judgment motion.
Background Plaintiffs are individuals who allegedly have used the Internet, visited web sites, and had an Avenue A "cookie" placed on their computers, thus permitting Avenue A to monitor their electronic See Charles A. Miller, Seattle, WA, for defendant. Version 5.0 Software Litig., No. 00-1341, 2001 U.S.Dist. *1159 LEXIS 6595, at *35 (S.D.Fla.
Washington. The exception requires a party to the communication to consent to the interception and that the interception be without any criminal or tortious purpose. Ed. 2d 733 (1979). Also pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for class certification (Dkt.
Ed. 2d 538 (1986); Adickes v. About Avenue A, Inc.Avenue A, Inc. (aQuantive, Inc. More specifically, the Act provides:Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section whoever (1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or(2) intentionally While both parties agree that Internet service providers are "facilities" covered by the Act, they dispute whether a user's individual *1161 computer provides any "electronic communication service." Viewing this factual dispute
These principles are designed to ensure Internet user privacy. IV. In fact, these sites have a commercial relationship with DoubleClick, which allows Avenue A to supply the sites with advertising. (Curtin Decl. ś 26.) Even though these web pages may contain Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to make a sufficient showing that further discovery would raise a triable issue.
i-FRONTIER is headquartered in Philadelphia. Your 'problem' is Norton Internet Security. One of the primary factors guiding the district court's discretion to grant a Rule 56(f) continuation and to allow more time for discovery is whether the facts sought to oppose summary In that case, the aggregation theory rejected by the court was that of damage to multiple computers, not damage from multiple acts.
Subscribe Now Justia Legal Resources Find a Lawyer Bankruptcy Lawyers Business Lawyers Criminal Lawyers Employment Lawyers Estate Planning Lawyers Family Lawyers Personal Injury Lawyers More... Many of the facts regarding these elements of the cause of action are in dispute. See VISA, 784 F.2d at 1475. The exception relevant to this case states:It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication
Because the undisputed facts show that the web pages have consented, and it is merely speculative that further discovery will reveal a tortious purpose behind Avenue A's technological and commercial modus Plaintiffs have not shown any facts that prove an aggregate damage of over $5,000 for any single act of the Defendant, from either the initial placement of an Avenue A cookie Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1018 (9th Cir.1991). Privacy Litigation,154 F.
The forward-looking statements in this release include, without limitation, statements about our growth, profitability, the addition of future brands, the future of the online advertising industry, expectations regarding our continued profitability, Site Changelog Community Forum Software by IP.Board Sign In Use Facebook Use Twitter Need an account? reinforces our strong belief in the growth of the online advertising industry, and our position as a leading force within that industry."In addition to the new corporate identity, the company also
DoubleClick, at 514 (quoting United *1163 States v. Ct. 2505, 91 L. The statute is ambiguous on this issue. Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › District Courts › Washington › Western District of Washington › 2001 › Chance v.
Because the Court finds that the § 2511(2) (d) exception applies, it is not necessary to address the Defendant's latter two contentions. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, after all claims have been dismissed, is moot. See Celotex Corp. Wash. 2001) U.S.
v. One-party consent is sufficient to negate liability under the consent prong of the Wiretap Act's exception. The computer is showing some classic signs of a bug. Doyle, II, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, San Diego, CA, Clifford Allen Cantor, Sammanish, VA, Brian J.
Plaintiffs' argument has some merit because the section as a whole is inconsistent regarding the interrelationship of "damage" and "loss." The definition of "damage" covers actions that "cause[ ] loss aggregating