• •
STATE
OF
MICHIGAN
IN
THE
CIRCUIT COURT
FOR THE
COUNTY
OF
KENT BEST
DRUG
REHABILITATION, INC., a Nevada
corporation,
v
Ohio, MICHAEL
J.
TOTH PHILLIP
B.
SLOT
Plaintiff, a resident
of
Defendant. (P36310) (P72960) Kreis, Enderle, Hudgins
&
Borsos,
P.C.
Attorneys
for
Plaintiff 40
Pearl Street
NW,
5
1
Floor Grand Rapids,
Ml
49503 (616) 254-8400
Case
No. 13-01094-NZ Han. Dennis
B.
Leiber
JEFFREY
P.
RAY
(P31098) Jeffrey
P.
Ray,
P.
C.
Attorneys
for
Defendant 2500 Lake Lansing Road, Suite A Lansing,
Ml
48912 (517) 372-5700
DEFENDANT S
BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION
FOR
SUMM RY
DISPOSITION
I
ackground and Factual Summary
Plaintiff
filed a
complaint
on February
1,
2013
for
alleged
defamation
per
se
regarding
an
internet
posting on
the
website
ripoffreport.com.
The
statement
(Exhibit
A
cited in
the complaint
does
not
have
an
actual name
attached
to the
posting, and
the
poster has signed
their
name
as
simply
Marie.
In
total,
Plaintiff
has filed seven lawsuits against
anonymous
posters
to
the
website ripoffreport.com.
All seven lawsuits
were
filed in Kent County
during the
month
of
February 2013. The
statement,
if
made by Defendant,
is
protected
speech.
Furthermore
the
statements,
if
false, are
not defamatory
because
they
are clearly
opinionated
reviews and a plea
for
help. Strict
liability
does
not
exist
for defamation
cases and
the
statements,
if
made,
were
not
made
with
actual malice
or
reckless disregard
for the
facts. Pursuant
to
MCR 2.116
•
•
(C)
(8) and (10)
Plaintiff
has failed
to
state a claim
upon
which
relief
can be granted
and this frivolous lawsuit
is
an
attempt
to
quiet
public discourse
with
regards
to
Plaintiff's business practices. This
lawsuit
is
also a means
to
harass Defendant,
who
resides in
another
state and does
not
have
the
means
to
appear
in
this
court
to
defend her
alleged actions.
Plaintiff
has filed its suit in Kent County, even
though
Best Drug Rehabilitation
(BDR)
is
a Nevada
corporation
with
a facility in Manistee, Michigan.
efendant
resides in Ohio. Plaintiff claims since
the
information
was
ccessible
in Kent County, this
court
should
therefore
have
jurisdiction simply
because
it
was broadcast
there.
A.
RipOffReport.com
The
website
Ripoff Report,
where
the
statements were
posted,
is
a site
where
any person can
post
reviews
of
a business anonymously.
Ripoff
claims
to
have never taken
down
a
review
and
they
are
owned
by
consumer
activist
Ed
Madgeson. Madgeson's
company
is
for-
profit
and he has
won
several lawsuits in the past, using
the
Communications Decency
Act
to
show
that
third
parties
who
publish
information
are
not
responsible
for
its
content.
Filing
suit directly
against
the Ripoff
Report has been proven
unfruitful.
Madgeson's site
offers arbitration
services
for
companies
who
wish
to
remove
content,
but
there are no
guarantees that
a
retraction
or
modification will
be awarded.
B.
Ripoff
Report
and Google
'M
Plaintiff's lawsuit
is
nothing
more
than an
attempt
to
remove
negative public
opinion
from
Google
M
search engines. Doing a search
for
Best Drug Rehabilitation
Manistee
results in
the
Ripoff
Report postings displayed in
the top
results. (Exhibit
B.)
There are some allegations by business
owners
that
Ripoff Report has had
nefarious
behavior in regards
to
getting
reviews in
the stop
search results. Ripoff Report denies such accusations,
claiming that
their
site
is
very active resulting in a higher ranking. Regardless, a
whole industry
has
erupted
for
how
to
"remove"
reviews which have
been posted on
Ripoff Reports.
It
is
likely
that
Plaintiff
has
visited a
website
similar
to
http:/ searchengineland.com/how-to-remove-ripoff-reports-from-google-not-just-bury-them-
65173.
The
website states:
'There
is
a far
lesser-known
option
that
I
have
found
that
works
wonders
(which
is
probably
why
Ripoff Report
makes no
mention of
it
on
their
site).
You
may
not
be
able
to
get
the
damning
listing
removed from
Ripoff Report,
but
in
my
experience,
you can
get
it
removed
from
Google,
which
is
almost
just as good. Here's
what
you
need
to
do,
in
three
steps:
First, file a lawsuit
against
the
original
author
of
the
report
for
defamation, business disparagement,
false light,
or any
other
claim
that
is
legally
appropriate.
The big
point
here
is
that
you
have
to
prove
your case
in a
court
of law -
you have
the
burden
to
prove
the
report
made about
you
is
false.
e
honest
with
yourself
here
(otherwise,
you're
just wasting
time
and money).
If
the
report about
you
is
true
(or
if
you
can't
prove
your
case),
you do
not
have
a valid claim
for
defamation, and
this
option
will
not work
for you. Again,
the
key
here
is
being
able
to
prove your case
in
a
court
of
law.
If
you
can't do
that, game
over.
You're stuck
with
one
of
the
other
options
above.
Also,
you should
only
sue
the
author
of
the
report-do
not sue
Google. Your
lawsuit
will
cost
a
fortune
(Google
has
plenty of
good
lawyers), fail very quickly,
and
you
will
only
serve
to
anger
the
one
company
that
can
help
you
the
most.
Second, obtain
a
court
order
declaring
the
offending
report
to
be
false
and defamatory
(this
of course
assumes
you win your
case). The specific
content of
this
order
can
take
various forms,
but
you
should make
sure
to
seek an order
that
refers
to the
offending
report
specifically. Third,
pre,ent the
Lour
order
to
Google.
In
my
experience,
Google will
honor
the
court order
and
completely remove
the
offending
webpage
from its
search
index."
3
