Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Lebowitz v Dow Jones

Lebowitz v Dow Jones

Ratings: (0)|Views: 124|Likes:
Published by Eric Goldman

More info:

Published by: Eric Goldman on Mar 19, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/12/2014

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK----------------------------------XGARY LEBOWITZ, ANDREW NEWMARK,ALLAN NEWMARK, and BURT FAURE,Individually and on Behalf ofAll Others Similarly Situated,Plaintiff, OPINION-against- 06 Civ. 2198 (MGC)DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC.Defendants.----------------------------------XAPPEARANCES:GISKAN, SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON, LLPAttorneys for Plaintiffs Gary Lebowitz, AndrewNewmark, Allan Newmark, and Burt Faure11 Broadway, Suite 2150New York, New York 10004BY: Oren S. Giskan, Esq.Catherine Elizabeth Anderson, Esq.LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALENAttorneys for Plaintiff Gary Lebowitz222 East 34th Street, Suite 1412New York, New York 10016BY: Paul C. Whalen, Esq.LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKOAttorneys for Plaintiffs Andrew Newmark, AllanNewmark, and Burt Faure16th West 46th Street, 7th FloorNew York, NY 10026BY: Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
Case 1:06-cv-02198-MGC Document 163 Filed 03/12/12 Page 1 of 15
 
2GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHERAttorneys for Defendant200 Park Avenue, 48th FloorNew York, New York 10166BY: Randy M. Mastro, Esq.Mark Benjamin Holton, Esq.Daniel Martin Sullivan, Esq.
Case 1:06-cv-02198-MGC Document 163 Filed 03/12/12 Page 2 of 15
 
3
Cedarbaum, J.
Plaintiffs, a putative class of Wall Street Journal Online(“WSJ Online”) annual subscribers sue Dow Jones & Company, Inc.for breach of contract and violation of New York GeneralBusiness Law § 349(a). The complaint alleges that Dow Joneseliminated prepaid annual subscribers’ access to Barron’s Online(“BOL”) in violation of the subscriber agreement, and that DowJones failed to disclose that prepaid subscribers would notretain access to both WSJ Online and BOL for the duration oftheir subscriptions. Plaintiffs have moved for classcertification.Dow Jones moves for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims.For the reasons that follow, Dow Jones’s motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are undisputed, except wherespecifically noted.Dow Jones owns and operates WSJ Online. Before January 8,2006, online subscribers to WSJ Online had access to the contentof both WSJ Online and BOL. On that date, Dow Jones “spun off”BOL into a separate service. Existing annual subscribers couldchoose to convert their subscriptions from WSJ Online to thenew, freestanding BOL and lose access to WSJ Online, or theycould retain their WSJ Online subscriptions and access BOL for aprorated fee, up to a maximum of $20. The $20 fee was prorated
Case 1:06-cv-02198-MGC Document 163 Filed 03/12/12 Page 3 of 15

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->