What is the law applying to social media?

Useful Resources for Social Media

Recent Rulings on Social Media

151-175 of 193 results

JANE DOE VS DAVID MUNOZ

Related, Defendant’s argument concerning Plaintiff using anonymity as a sword and shield because she has a social media presence is a thinly veiled attempt to reveal as much identifying information about Plaintiff without using her name. (Reply at pp. 1-3.) Defendant provides no evidence that Plaintiff is using social media as a platform to discuss this lawsuit. This improper and illogical argument only shows that this case is one of exceptional circumstances.

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2017

ELIZABETH TAYLOR ET AL VS ALKIVIADES DAVID ET AL

Such behavior allegedly included that David required them to watch the infamous pornographic film “Two Girls, One Cup” in a workplace conference room, required Plaintiffs to follow him on social media where he displayed lewd images, and hired a stripper for an office birthday party. David allegedly treated human resources as a joke by putting up a sign on an office door that read “Her-ASS…We Will Give You Just the Tip” with an image of man grabbing a woman’s breasts and beneath that “HR Headquarters.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2017

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

FIEL VS. VALCON CRITICAL CARE

The FAC states that the “posts were made at a time when UYEYAMA was task[ed] with delivering life-saving care to KEYANO but was instead actively failing to deliver such care and was taking numerous photos of the KEYANO’s injuries, uploading them to UYEYAMA’s social media account, applying numerous hashtags specific to the injury and to KEYANO, and then posting them online.” (FAC 5 ¶ 3.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2017

FIEL VS. VALCON CRITICAL CARE

This case is about an unauthorized social media post by Falcon employee, Uyeyama, who posted a picture of Keyano’s injured leg to Instagram while transporting him between hospitals. Plaintiff alleges five causes of action against Defendants: 1) violation of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (“CMIA”), 2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, 3) negligent infliction of emotional distress, 4) negligence per se, and 5) negligent hiring, retention and supervision.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2017

ACTIVE NETWORK LLC VS. TMT PRODUCTIONS LLC

Active has provided some evidence (emails and deposition testimony) that Defendant Graham may have taken information from Active to use in TMT's business, e.g. a Social Media Playbook. This raises an issue of fact as to whether a trade secret was misappropriated. Notwithstanding, Active has not provide evidence of misappropriation by Brown. In presenting alleged undisputed facts, Active provides Exhibit L, a compilation of emails.

  • Hearing

    Sep 07, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ACTIVE NETWORK LLC VS. TMT PRODUCTIONS LLC

Active has provided some evidence (emails and deposition testimony) that Defendant Graham may have taken information from Active to use in TMT's business, e.g. a Social Media Playbook. This raises an issue of fact as to whether a trade secret was misappropriated. Notwithstanding, Active has not provide evidence of misappropriation by Brown. In presenting alleged undisputed facts, Active provides Exhibit L, a compilation of emails.

  • Hearing

    Sep 07, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ACTIVE NETWORK LLC VS. TMT PRODUCTIONS LLC

Active has provided some evidence (emails and deposition testimony) that Defendant Graham may have taken information from Active to use in TMT's business, e.g. a Social Media Playbook. This raises an issue of fact as to whether a trade secret was misappropriated. Notwithstanding, Active has not provide evidence of misappropriation by Brown. In presenting alleged undisputed facts, Active provides Exhibit L, a compilation of emails.

  • Hearing

    Sep 07, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ACTIVE NETWORK LLC VS. TMT PRODUCTIONS LLC

Active has provided some evidence (emails and deposition testimony) that Defendant Graham may have taken information from Active to use in TMT's business, e.g. a Social Media Playbook. This raises an issue of fact as to whether a trade secret was misappropriated. Notwithstanding, Active has not provide evidence of misappropriation by Brown. In presenting alleged undisputed facts, Active provides Exhibit L, a compilation of emails.

  • Hearing

    Sep 07, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GETZ V. EL DORADO OWNER’S ASSOC.

Defendant Serrano Associates, LLC argues in its reply that evidence of plaintiff’s social media attacks on HOA members that the plaintiff deems are associated with defendant Serrano Associates, LLC meets its initial burden to establish that disclosure of the documents requested will result in harassment, membership withdrawal, or discouragement of new members, or other consequences which objectively suggest an impact on, or ‘chilling’ of, the members' associational rights.

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2017

RIESENMAN V. BASER

of unlimited access to everything on the devices; and the requests are unduly burdensome and well outside the scope of permissible discovery.

  • Hearing

    Jul 20, 2017

SCSS HOLDINGS INC VS CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED SCH DISTRICT

RFPs 11, 12, 13, 14: These asked plaintiff to produce all documents setting forth the services its business offered in 2013-2016, including "flyers, advertisements, correspondence, emails, social media, and links to websites." Plaintiff objected that it could not comply with any request for "social media" and "links to websites." It also objected that the request was vague because it failed to defined the term "services offered." There is good cause for this RFP.

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2017

SCSS HOLDINGS INC VS CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED SCH DISTRICT

RFPs 11, 12, 13, 14: These asked plaintiff to produce all documents setting forth the services its business offered in 2013-2016, including "flyers, advertisements, correspondence, emails, social media, and links to websites." Plaintiff objected that it could not comply with any request for "social media" and "links to websites." It also objected that the request was vague because it failed to defined the term "services offered." There is good cause for this RFP.

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2017

MICHAEL SALAZAR VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL

In fact, Defendants went out their way in the form of newspaper ads, internet campaigns and social media postings advertising of the safety of the Subject Vehicle. 45. Defendants also represented to Plaintiff that Defendant would repair any defects in the vehicle upon notification by the Plaintiff pursuant to the terms of the written warranties issued by Defendants at the time of sale.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2017

NANCY WOJTAS VS CRUX BIOMEDICAL INC

Preliminarily, the evidence Plaintiffs rely on to identify witnesses comes from the social media website LinkedIn. Such evidence does not establish that any of the potential witnesses identified have knowledge such that they would be subject to deposition in this case. Nonetheless, Defendants concede that "aspects of the design occurred in California and that it is possible the VCFs were manufactured in California."

  • Hearing

    Jun 08, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

NANCY WOJTAS VS CRUX BIOMEDICAL INC

Preliminarily, the evidence Plaintiffs rely on to identify witnesses comes from the social media website LinkedIn. Such evidence does not establish that any of the potential witnesses identified have knowledge such that they would be subject to deposition in this case. Nonetheless, Defendants concede that "aspects of the design occurred in California and that it is possible the VCFs were manufactured in California."

  • Hearing

    Jun 08, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

V F VS LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

(Paragraph 12) One particular antagonist was student V.M. who extended the bullying to on-line postings through social media websites such as Facebook. V.M. sent Plaintiff messages calling her a “slut” and “hoe” and stating that no one liked Plaintiff and she should kill herself. (Paragraph 13) The essential allegations of the complaint concern the events of February 25, 2015.

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

V F VS LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

(Paragraph 12) One particular antagonist was student V.M. who extended the bullying to on-line postings through social media websites such as Facebook. V.M. sent Plaintiff messages calling her a “slut” and “hoe” and stating that no on liked Plaintiff and she should kill herself. (Paragraph 13) The essential allegations of the complaint concern the events of February 25, 2015.

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2017

GRACIELA CONTRERAS VS LEE'S MAINTENANCE SERVICES INC

Plaintiff asserts that she “was humiliated and felt violated when McCreary took pictures of her butt. . . fe[lt] sexually exploited. . . feared that McCreary could post the inappropriate pictures on social media sites. . . was angry and afraid that McCreary could upload the inappropriate pictures of her butt to the internet, where it would remain permanently and could potentially damage her reputation.” (UMF 15–17, 19–23, 25, 27–28.) This incident cannot constitute actionable sexual harassment.

  • Hearing

    May 15, 2017

DYLAN LAMMERS V. THE CLIFFS RESORT, LLC

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to further harassment and discrimination because he was banned from visiting the Cliffs Resort in September 2014; precluded from entering the premises on multiple occasions through September 2015; falsely accused of defaming a staff member on social media in January 2015; and refused rehire through February 2, 2017. (TAC, ¶ 65(l)-65(o).)

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2017

MONTOYA VS BELK

He gave plaintiff's company unfavorable reviews on social media (a review solicited by plaintiff). Following unfruitful meetings and discussions between the parties, this action was filed on April 28, 2016. ROA 1. The complaint, alleging claims for IIED, "Willful Act," "Misrepresentation," slander, and declaratory relief,* was filed by Montoya in propria persona on his own behalf and on behalf of his corporation Advanced Exteriors, Inc.** Defendant answered, also in propria persona, on September 9, 2016.

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

MONTOYA VS BELK

He gave plaintiff's company unfavorable reviews on social media (a review solicited by plaintiff). Following unfruitful meetings and discussions between the parties, this action was filed on April 28, 2016. ROA 1. The complaint, alleging claims for IIED, "Willful Act," "Misrepresentation," slander, and declaratory relief,* was filed by Montoya in propria persona on his own behalf and on behalf of his corporation Advanced Exteriors, Inc.** Defendant answered, also in propria persona, on September 9, 2016.

  • Hearing

    May 02, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Defamation

KATELYN GEARY V. CARPINTERIA COMMUNITY CHURCH

There are many churches, presbyteries, synods in the Presbyterian Church and to ask Respondent to produce every such communication, over time, as between them is, again, burdensome, oppressive, harassing and overbroad and would encompass an untold and indeterminate number of topics/issues, and could run the gamut from phone messages, correspondence, literature, emails, publications, website content, press releases, social media presence (including but not limited to Facebook), bulletins, and etc.

  • Hearing

    Mar 27, 2017

ISABEL C., ET AL. V. CARPINTERIA COMMUNITY CHURCH, ET AL.

There are many churches, presbyteries, synods in the Presbyterian Church and to ask Respondent to produce every such communication, over time, as between them is, again, burdensome, oppressive, harassing and overbroad and would encompass an untold and indeterminate number of topics/issues, and could run the gamut from phone messages, correspondence, literature, emails, publications, website content, press releases, social media presence (including but not limited to Facebook), bulletins, and etc.

  • Hearing

    Mar 27, 2017

MARCO GONZALEZ VS CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Plaintiff alleges the following: Judith Meister was an employee of Defendant and in the course of her employment leaked Plaintiff’s private email information to members of the Ringflyer Gang. (Complaint ¶ 2.) Following the leak, Plaintiff was threatened by members of the Ringflyer Gang on various occasions at Muscle beach, property controlled and managed by Defendant, as well as on social media. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 9, 29.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 27, 2017

ADELSON, TESTAN, BRUNDO, NOVELL & JIMENEZ V. MISA STEFEN KOLLER WARD, LLP

Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 447, did not appear to involve similar allegations of access of employee personal social media or personal email account. Whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists here may be within a grey area, or an “open question”, as in Cal. Prac. Guide Employment Litigation § 5:1010 (Rutter Group 2016). One court seems to have allowed a claim, see Mintz v. Mark Bartelstein and Associates Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2012) 906 F.Supp.2d 1017, 1033.

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2017

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.