What is the law applying to social media?

Useful Resources for Social Media

Recent Rulings on Social Media

176-193 of 193 results

ELAINE MADSEN ET AL VS CELESTE VARNER ET AL

In fall 2014, Madsen, Dawson, and a third party (identified in the cross-complaints only as “Friend”) began engaging in flirtatious exchanges on social media. (CCC, ¶ 5.) Friend was not an employee of Loop. (CCC, ¶ 6.) Lee was invited by Friend to join the Snapchat application (Snapchat). (CCC, ¶ 5; Lee Cross-Complaint [LCC], ¶ 9.) Snapchat is an internet-based application that allows users to text and send pictures and videos to each other via smartphones, tablets, or other devices. (LCC, ¶ 9.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2017

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

MITCHELL WALTER WOOLLEY VS AMERICAN CURVET INVESTMENT LLC

This action arises out of a dispute concerning a written agreement pursuant to which EMA provided certain services to ACI including website design and social media marketing. EMA now moves for an order disqualify Ray Hsu, Esq. (“Hsu”) as counsel for ACI. DISCUSSION “Trial courts in civil cases have the power to order disqualification of counsel when necessary for the furtherance of justice. Exercise of that power requires a cautious balancing of competing interests.

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2017

TIMED OUT LLC VS. MIDWAY VENTURES LLC

Midway did not have password access to the Facebook page developed by J Dog, or any other social media site J Dog might have utilized during its contract with Midway. Midway relied upon J Dog as the 'expert' on social media. J Dog exercised total control over Midway's social media." And, at Para. 5, Mr. Morse states that Defendant did not have any involvement in obtaining or selecting the images posted on any social media prepared by J Dog.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TIMED OUT LLC VS. MIDWAY VENTURES LLC

Midway did not have password access to the Facebook page developed by J Dog, or any other social media site J Dog might have utilized during its contract with Midway. Midway relied upon J Dog as the 'expert' on social media. J Dog exercised total control over Midway's social media." And, at Para. 5, Mr. Morse states that Defendant did not have any involvement in obtaining or selecting the images posted on any social media prepared by J Dog.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

TIMED OUT LLC VS. MIDWAY VENTURES LLC

Midway did not have password access to the Facebook page developed by J Dog, or any other social media site J Dog might have utilized during its contract with Midway. Midway relied upon J Dog as the 'expert' on social media. J Dog exercised total control over Midway's social media." And, at Para. 5, Mr. Morse states that Defendant did not have any involvement in obtaining or selecting the images posted on any social media prepared by J Dog.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

AMN HEALTHCARE INC VS. AYA HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC

These claims fail because the information at issue - names and addresses of AMN employees – are not protectable trade secrets, especially where, as here, such individuals had previously applied to Aya, Aya or the Individuals independently knew the information, or the information was publicly available through social media websites. As to the Second Cause of Action in the Cross-Complaint for Violations of Business & Professions Code 17200, the motion is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2016

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

Y H VS GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Second, this illuminates the problem with the use of the phrase “all documents” because it includes within its broad scope personal communications with a therapist, emails or text messages to co-workers, or even posts on social media, if they were made by the Cross-Complainants’ staff about the incident. In the second supplemental declaration of Geoffrey Warner, which was filed on September 27, 2016, Mr.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2016

Y H VS GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Second, this illuminates the problem with the use of the phrase “all documents” because it includes within its broad scope personal communications with a therapist, emails or text messages to co-workers, or even posts on social media, if they were made by the Cross-Complainants’ staff about the incident. In the second supplemental declaration of Geoffrey Warner, which was filed on September 27, 2016, Mr.

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2016

SHARP VS STOCKTIPS.COM

Plaintiff alleges that AWeber is an email and social media marketing provider that manages email lists for its clients and disseminates customer created emails to those lists. (FAC ¶10). Plaintiff also alleges that various users access AWeber, including the other defendants. These facts are in accordance with the broad definition of interactive service provider under Section 230.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SHARP VS STOCKTIPS.COM

Plaintiff alleges that AWeber is an email and social media marketing provider that manages email lists for its clients and disseminates customer created emails to those lists. (FAC ¶10). Plaintiff also alleges that various users access AWeber, including the other defendants. These facts are in accordance with the broad definition of interactive service provider under Section 230.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

PERSOLVE, LLC VS MICHAEL F. STAMPLE

Jauregui states that she also searched various social media networks but was unable to obtain additional information about the Defendant. Mr. Jauregui states that through these searches, she located the residential address of 11939 Weddington St., Unit 307, Valley Village CA 91607 and the employment address of 1511 W. Garvey Ave., West Covina, CA 91790. Ms.

  • Hearing

    Sep 23, 2016

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

KIMBERLY KANDARIAN VS VENTURA COUNTY

to the client's social media page but did not show her subordinates non-graphic images for identification purposes, instead choosing to show them pornography (Ibid); (4) Pl did not show her subordinates pornography for identification purposes at any other time, which demonstrates that such a practice was not a routine or standard practice used by Pl; (5) Neither subordinate employee who viewed the images with Pl saw any business reason for viewing the pornography, and one of those employees, Theresa Kocontes

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2016

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

KIMBERLY KANDARIAN VS VENTURA COUNTY

to the client's social media page but did not show her subordinates non-graphic images for identification purposes, instead choosing to show them pornography (Ibid); (4) Pl did not show her subordinates pornography for identification purposes at any other time, which demonstrates that such a practice was not a routine or standard practice used by Pl; (5) Neither subordinate employee who viewed the images with Pl saw any business reason for viewing the pornography, and one of those employees, Theresa Kocontes

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2016

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

GLENN SYMMONDS VS. EDWARD JOSEPH MAHONEY

Plaintiff also brings causes of action for (4) libel, and (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress based on allegations that Defendant published false statements about Plaintiff over social media and sexually harassed Plaintiff's fiancé. Defendant moves to transfer venue on the grounds that venue is proper in Los Angeles County and improper in Sacramento County under FEHA's venue statute, which establishes an exception to the broad venue statute set forth in CCP 395.

  • Hearing

    Jan 28, 2016

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

NICHOLAS SAKAI VS MARK LAWRENCE ET AL

(ii) Sakai’s Access and Use of CRSVR Internet Sites and Social Media In his opposition, Sakai also agrees that he will not use CRSVR electronic media. (Opposition, at p. 3.) The court accepts this as a concession that the injunction may properly prohibit Sakai from using any CRSVR internet sites or social media.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2013

MICHAEL THOMPSON AND JOAN THOMPSON

The parents may have telephone access and social media access such as FaceTime, Skype, etc., so each may have access to the child at reasonable times for reasonable durations. 18. Neither parent will make or allow others to make negative comments about the other parent or the other parent’s past or present relationships, family, or friends within hearing distance of the child. 19. The parents will communicate directly with each other and will not use the child as a messenger; 20.

  • Hearing

    Apr 16, 2013

STEVE LAZARO VS CAMILLE MARTIN

On 9/25 father filed his response; reports that mother also abused substances, and was herself the subject of juvenile court proceedings; reports he has taken positive steps to be a responsible, law-abiding citizen and parent but that mother continues to abuse alcohol and run with the wrong crowd; attaches social media pages that show mother and her new boyfriend, by whom she has the new child, smoking something and drinking something; renews his request for modest time share.

  • Hearing

    Oct 09, 2012

STEVE LAZARO VS CAMILLE MARTIN

On 9/25 father filed his response; reports that mother also abused substances, and was herself the subject of juvenile court proceedings; reports he has taken positive steps to be a responsible, law-abiding citizen and parent but that mother continues to abuse alcohol and run with the wrong crowd; attaches social media pages that show mother and her new boyfriend, by whom she has the new child, smoking something and drinking something; renews his request for modest time share.

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2012

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.