From Hopscotch Adoptions, Inc. v. Kachadurian (E.D. Cal. Dec. 7):
On an expedited, ex parte basis, plaintiffs Hopscotch Adoptions, Inc. … and Robin Sizemore … seek: … a temporary restraining order to prohibit defendant Venessa Kachadurian’s … internet and related comments on Hopscotch and Ms. Sizemore ….Hopscotch is an accredited intercountry adoption agency and was co-founded by Ms. Sizemore, its executive director. Ms. Kachadurian is a Fresno resident who, according to plaintiffs, “has unsuccessfully pursued intercountry adoption since at least 2004 and has waged an ongoing cybersmear campaign against such agencies since at least 2005.” Ms. Kachadurian has been neither a Hopscotch client nor an applicant with plaintiffs or an entity affiliated with Ms. Sizemore.
Plaintiffs attribute to Ms. Kachadurian comments in email, blogs and internet chatrooms that plaintiffs engaged in illegal practices and that Ms. Sizemore was fired from a prior adoption agency job for illegal or unethical practices. Plaintiffs further attribute Ms. Kachadurian to improperly claim that Ms. Sizemore is connected with the arrest of Hopscotch’s in-county facilitator in the Georgia republic. Plaintiffs claim “irreparable harm” in lost business and “hesitance among adoption seekers in doing business with Hopscotch.” Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges claims for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030, et seq., defamation, negligent misrepresentation, false light, tortious interference with contractual relations, and negligent interference with prospective advantage….
Here, plaintiffs’ alleged harm is compensable by monetary damages, and the complaint’s tort claims demonstrate as much. Unearned fees from lost clients or opportunities is subject to calculation. Moreover, this Court is concerned about free speech issues, especially given plaintiffs’ reliance on apparent limited, stray comments by Ms. Kachadurian. This Court is perplexed by the overreaching injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs and inability to police or enforce such relief. Although plaintiffs identify finite, limited comments by Ms. Kachadurian, they seek sweeping injunctive relief touching on areas irrelevant and remote to plaintiffs’ claim. The scope of plaintiffs’ proposed injunctive relief is unreasonable and unacceptable….
This Court does not grant overreaching injunctive and discovery relief on an ex parte, unnoticed basis, especially when such requested relief lacks defined, adequate support. Although plaintiffs may have meritorious claims for monetary damages, this Court is concerned that plaintiffs pursue their requested relief to retaliate and intimidate….
Here is the plaintiffs’ denied motion for a TRO, which asks for (among other things) a temporary restraining order barring “[a]ny further annoyance or harassment of any adoption service provider and/or from interfering with any adoption service providers on the basis of their [race], color, religion, national origin, disability or sexual orientation,” barring “false and defamatory statements” (something that’s generally treated as an unconstitutional prior restraint unless there’s a final decision on the merits actually finding the speech to be false), and requiring defendant to “take appropriate remedial measures with respect to postings still available on the Internet.” Plus “Notice of this application was not provided to Defendant due to her history of acting in retaliation and general erratic behavior and concern that she might attempt to destroy relevant evidence in this matter,” but such speech restraints without notice are especially hard to justify.
neurodoc says:
The meaning of “cyber-smear” is not hard to grasp. I didn’t realize, though, that the phenomenon had given rise to a neologism that could be used in a formal court filing.
Provided that the facts are as alleged by the plaintiffs, and I have no reason to doubt that they are, my sympathies are with them and I hope they prevail, though EV thinks the law doesn’t favor them, at least not at this stage going for an ex parte TRO.
December 16, 2009, 7:05 pmLisa Cantrell says:
[Comment deleted because of apparent sock-puppetry on the author's part. (I suspect the same of the ChicagoAdoption and Barbara McArtney comments below, but I'm not as certain, so I'll leave them there.) If you want to express your views, fine; but pretending that they're coming from a bunch of people is deceptive, and while I obviously can't police this routinely, I'm happy to delete such sock puppet comments when they are obvious and I notice them. -EV]
December 16, 2009, 7:32 pmKarl Petersen says:
Neurodoc, how can you believe this totally silly lawsuit? It sounds almost ridiculously exaggerated. When you say yes, your overseas employee was arrested, but it’s not relevant because it was “politically motivated”? And then you expect us to believe the rest of this?
A lot of these people who run international adoption agencies are either shady or mentally unstable, and a little bit of both. From the wild allegations made here and the sweeping nature of the relief sought, I’d say Ms. Sizemore is probably both. These read like the vengeful fantasies of someone with borderline personality disorder, something that won’t survive a motion for summary dismissal. I like the offer of proof … one affidavit saying “I could swear to this under oath”. Where’s the redacted printouts of the alleged emails? Huh? Do they even exist? I doubt it.
What kind of lawyer would have taken a case this shoddy and emotionally driven? I have zero respect for this “Internet Law center” operation. You’d think they’d have found out where the defendant actually lives and works instead of just saying, well, we think she lives in this city and works here.
EV, has the defendant responded? It would be interesting to see what they say in response.
December 16, 2009, 8:26 pmKazinski says:
I may well be two nutcases going up against each other. Just the sort of thing to make a judge’s day. Kachadurian’s postings seem pretty extreme and vitriolic, but the proposed TRO, called her and re-raised.
December 16, 2009, 8:47 pmBlackrobe1Day says:
[Apparent sock-puppet comment deleted. -EV]
December 16, 2009, 9:34 pmKarl Petersen says:
You mean the admission of truth from the Plaintiff, right?
December 16, 2009, 9:57 pmBlackrobe1Day says:
[Apparent sock-puppet comment deleted. -EV]
December 16, 2009, 10:04 pmneurodoc says:
OK, I only skimmed it and assumed the plaintiff wouldn’t be complaining of reports that she had been arrested abroad and fired here, if those weren’t just defamatory, but false too. Probably shouldn’t have rushed to judgment like that, so will take back my expression of support until the facts are established, if that ever happens. (And maybe Kazinski‘s speculation that this is two nut cases going at it will prove correct (or incorrect, I don’t know).
If one is being seriously cyber-smeared, that is truly libeled and damaged, how much does it take to put a stop to it and how does one go about it? It’s a different game when it is going on in cyberspace than in print, isn’t it, with things move much, much faster and reaching much, much farther.
Any mega victories by those who have been cybersmeared? What are the practicalities when going after a cybersmearer as opposed to a “traditional” libeler/slanderer?
December 16, 2009, 10:24 pmLoveLaw says:
[Apparent sock-puppet comment deleted. -EV]
December 16, 2009, 10:47 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » “This Court Is Perplexed by the Overreaching Injunctive Relief Sought by Plaintiffs” -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Suffolk Media Law, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: “This Court Is Perplexed by the Overreaching Injunctive Relief Sought by Plaintiffs”: From Hopscotch Adoptions,.. http://bit.ly/6CnBfI [...]
December 16, 2009, 11:06 pmLawstudentUCLA says:
[Apparent sock-puppet comment deleted. -EV]
December 16, 2009, 11:15 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Not the most well-drafted complaint. 18 USC 425? And the CAFA claim is ridiculous.
December 16, 2009, 11:49 pmDavid Nieporent says:
But you’ve got to love a person who posts as various sock puppets but isn’t smart enough to change the purported URL, even when (s?)he changes his/her posting name.
December 17, 2009, 12:02 amLovelaw says:
[Apparent sock-puppet comment deleted. -EV]
December 17, 2009, 1:07 amAmbulanceChaser says:
[Apparent sock-puppet comment deleted. -EV]
December 17, 2009, 1:26 amChicagoAdoption says:
The lawsuit is personel and not professional. If adoption agencies are allowed to file lawsuits based upon people distributing known facts and details of the shady business they practice I guess we should all just throw in the towel and move to a Soviet country which is where Sizemore must have obtained her law advise.
December 17, 2009, 5:35 pmBut I really question her so called Board of Directors. Are they protecting shareholder value to allow the mis use of company funds like this? Bernie Madoff business school.
Barbara McArtney says:
This business of legal threats and bringing defamation actions was a common tactic of Amrex, David Bentley-Dolinsky of a Child’s Hope and Orson Moses of Adopt Program International and we saw what became of them. Parents aren’t just rolling over and taking it anymore.
No agency is without its critics, it is part of the territory. An occasional complaint from clients or the public should not unduly threaten an otherwise decent agency nor would it likely turn away customers unless it was coupled with other red flags like history of arrests and firings.
Ironically, I can’t imagine anything that would scare away business faster than an agency that sues people who dare to criticize it.
December 17, 2009, 6:02 pmAmbulanceChaser says:
Barbara McArtney is a famous Adoption Lawyer and an Adoptive mom.
December 17, 2009, 7:57 pmChicago Adoption says:
I came accross this blog quite by accident. I am an adoption advocate and adoptive mom. Should you think me a puppet of some sort feel free to email me your phone number and I would be happy to discuss the state of International adoptions.But first you need to educate yourself because this business makes the Mafia look like good guys.
If you beleive everyone posting is this sock puppet ( ridiculous name) why operate a blog in the first place.
December 17, 2009, 10:13 pmChicago Adoption says:
Let us not forget that organizations like UNICEF have very openly condemed International adoptions. I guess last Saturdays 48 hours showing the children of Samoa being stolen from their parents. Part of an adoption scam. I suspect this story will have a negative effect on International adoption agencies. I guess both organizations could be sued for causing a decline in business to every or any adoption agency.
I just love how Ultra Liberals wish to silence the entire world. Facts are just no longer politically correct.
December 17, 2009, 10:25 pm“This Court Is Perplexed by the Overreaching Injunctive Relief Sought by Plaintiffs” | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] link: “This Court Is Perplexed by the Overreaching Injunctive Relief Sought by Plaintiffs” Share this [...]
December 19, 2009, 12:51 am