Slip CopyPage 1Slip Copy, 2009 WL 62173 (N.D.Tex.)
(Cite as: 2009 WL 62173 (N.D.Tex.))
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, N.D. Texas, DallasDivision.GW EQUITY LLC, Plaintiff,v.
VENTURES LLC, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-976-O.
Jan. 9, 2009.John T. Cox, III,Angela V. Colmenero,Lynn
Tillotson & Pinker, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.Jeffrey Scot Seeburger , Kane Russell Coleman &Logan, Dallas, TX,Maria Crimi Speth,Jaburg &
Wilk PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RESOLVING OBJECTIONS AND AFFIRMING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On June 2, 2008, this Court referred Defendants'Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 164) to themagistrate judge for recommendation.
Order of Reference (Doc. # 225). On October 8, 2008, themagistrate judge found that Defendants pointed to theabsence of a genuine issue of material fact, and thatPlaintiff failed to raise an issue, regardingDefendants' immunity under the CommunicationsDecency Act (“CDA”). Based on this finding, themagistrate judge recommended that this Court grantDefendants' Motion for Summary Judgment becausePlaintiff's claims are barred, as a matter of law, by theCDA. Plaintiff filed a timely objection to themagistrate judge's findings and recommendation.Having determined
those parts of themagistrate judge's findings and recommendation towhich Plaintiff has objected, the Court affirms themagistrate judge's order and
Defendants'Motion for Summary Judgment.
FN1. A detailed summary of the underlyingfacts is provided within the magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendationregarding Defendants' Motion for SummaryJudgment, as well as the magistrate judge'sFindings and Recommendation regardingPlaintiff's motion for sanctions.
Doc. Nos. 241, 242 (3:07-CV-976-O) (N.D.Tex.Oct. 8, 2008).Plaintiff GW Equity (“Plaintiff”) is a mergers andacquisition firm which acts as a consultant to business owners who seek to sell or merge their business. Doc. No. 109 (3:07-CV-976-O) (N.D.Tex.Mar. 20, 2008) (“Amd.Compl.”). Defendant XcentricVentures, LLC operates a website known as “TheRip-Off Report,” which is located atwww.ripoffreport.com andwww.badbusinessbureau.com (“websites”). Doc. No.166 (3:07-CV-976-O) (N.D.Tex. Jun. 2, 2008)(“Defs' Appx”).
Defendant Edward Magedson isthe manager of Xcentric Ventures, LLC.
Plaintiff alleges Xcentric Ventures LLC,www.ripoffreport.com,www.badbusinessbureau.com, and EdwardMagedson (collectively “Defendants”) publisheddefamatory reports about Plaintiff on their websites,and developed, wrote, created, edited, and publishedinformation contained in the titles and headings of the reports. Plaintiff demanded in writing thatDefendants remove these statements. Doc. No. 186(3:07-CV-976-O) (N.D.Tex. Jul. 7, 2008) (“Pl'sAppx.”).
Defendants refused and Plaintiff filed suiton June 1, 2007. Plaintiff brings claims for defamation/libel, interference with businessrelationship, business disparagement, disclosure of trade secrets and confidential information, and civilconspiracy, and asks the court to permanently enjoinDefendants from disseminating, using, or publishingdisparaging comments about Plaintiff. Amd. Compl.FN2. Defendants' appendix in support of itsmotion for summary judgment is found atdocket numbers 166 and 179, with all sealedmaterials at docket entry 179.FN3. Plaintiff's appendix is found at docketnumbers 186 and 205, with all sealedmaterials at docket entry 205.© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.