Mudd Law Offices

Providing Legal Representation to Individuals and Business Organizations

Past Selected Litigation Matters

Anonymity on the Internet

Circle Group Holdings v. Yahoo!, Inc. (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois)

Charles Mudd represented two anonymous individuals who posted communications online regarding Circle Group Holdings. Circle Group Holdings sought personally identifying information regarding these two anonymous individuals, among others, from Yahoo!, Inc. On behalf of these anonymous individuals, Charles Mudd filed a motion to intervene and intervene using fictitious names as well as a motion to vacate an order permitting discovery against Yahoo!, Inc. by Circle Group Holdings. During the pendency of these motions, Charles Mudd has successfully settled on behalf of one of the anonymous individuals to the benefit of the parties.

Cullen, et al. v. Ybarrolaza, et al. (Tennessee)

Charles Mudd represented Phillip Ybarrolaza in an action filed against Ybarrolaza and several Doe Defendants for alleged defamatory statements published by the Doe Defendants at Ybarrolaza's website, www.teamster.net, regarding the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs sought information regarding the Doe Defendants from Ybarrolaza and sought to hold him liable for the statements. On behalf of Ybarrolaza, Charles Mudd filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds and immunity under § 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The Court granted Ybarrolaza's motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds.

E. Van Cullens v. John Doe, 2003 L 000111 (18th Judicial Circuit, DuPage County, Illinois)

Charles Mudd represented the Defendant, John Doe. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant made defamatory communications regarding Westell Technologies, Inc. that harmed the Plaintiff, Westell's CEO. On behalf of the Defendant, Charles Mudd filed a motion to dismiss all claims. The Court granted Defendant's motion and the case was dismissed. Pleadings can be read here.

Commercial Litigation

Advanced Field Services, Inc. v. Millennium Information Services, Inc., 05 C 2881 (N.D. Illinois)

We represented Plaintiff Advanced Field Services, Inc. in litigating claims against Millennium Information Services, Inc. and James Paprocki for trade secret misappropriation, tortious interference with business relations, breach of contract (non-compete agreement and non-disclosure agreement), defamation and related claims. We filed a motion for preliminary injunction on its behalf.

 

Defamation

Circle Group Holdings v. Yahoo!, Inc. (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois)

Charles Mudd represented two anonymous individuals who posted communications online regarding Circle Group Holdings. Circle Group Holdings sought personally identifying information regarding these two anonymous individuals, among others, from Yahoo!, Inc. On behalf of these anonymous individuals, Charles Mudd filed a motion to intervene and intervene using fictitious names as well as a motion to vacate an order permitting discovery against Yahoo!, Inc. by Circle Group Holdings. During the pendency of these motions, Charles Mudd has successfully settled on behalf of one of the anonymous individuals to the benefit of the parties.

Cullen, et al. v. Ybarrolaza, et al. (Tennessee)

Charles Mudd represented Phillip Ybarrolaza in an action filed against Ybarrolaza and several Doe Defendants for alleged defamatory statements published by the Doe Defendants at Ybarrolaza's website, www.teamster.net, regarding the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs sought information regarding the Doe Defendants from Ybarrolaza and sought to hold him liable for the statements. On behalf of Ybarrolaza, Charles Mudd filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds and immunity under § 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The Court granted Ybarrolaza's motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds.

E. Van Cullens v. John Doe, 2003 L 000111 (18th Judicial Circuit, DuPage County, Illinois)

Charles Mudd represented the Defendant, John Doe. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant made defamatory communications regarding Westell Technologies, Inc. that harmed the Plaintiff, Westell's CEO. On behalf of the Defendant, Charles Mudd filed a motion to dismiss all claims. The Court granted Defendant's motion and the case was dismissed. Pleadings can be read here.

F/X v. Brian Smith (United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois)

Charles Mudd represented F/X, a Denmark company, in pursuing trade secret, breach of contract, defamation, false light, and tortious interference claims against Brian Smith, a former programmer who worked for F/X. This matter was settled to the satisfaction of our client.

Macumber v. West Suburban Medical Center, et al., 04 L 11415 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois)

We represent the Plaintiffs in this action brought against the Defendants for defamation, false light, tortious interference with business relations, and other related claims.

iParenting v. Auerbach, 04 C 3840 (United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois)

Charles Mudd represented the Defendant who the Plaintiffs alleged communicated defamatory statements. The parties reached settlement.

Intellectual Property Related Litigation

F/X v. Brian Smith (United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois)

Charles Mudd represented F/X, a Denmark company, in pursuing trade secret, breach of contract, defamation, false light, and tortious interference claims against Brian Smith, a former programmer who worked for F/X. This matter was settled to the satisfaction of our client.

Trudeau, et al. v. Lanoue, et al. 04 C 7165 (N.D. Ill.)

We represent the Defendants in an action brought by Kevin Trudeau and Direct Response Associates for alleged cybersquatting. The Defendants dispute the allegations. The Parties have filed motions for summary judgment.

White v. Zebra-Wak, et al. (Circuit Court of Cook County, United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois)

Charles Mudd represented Gerald White, also known as the artist "Gjeri", in pursuing breach of contract, copyright infringment, and other related claims against Zebra-Wak, Rodrick Michael Bailey ("Zebra"), and others. This involved claims in state and federal court. Eventually, the parties settled their claims.

Privacy Related Litigation

Doe v. "Chicago"

Charles Mudd represented a woman who had been filmed without her knowledge against a foreign entertainment company and related entities. The Complaint alleged that the Defendants filmed Ms. Doe without her knowledge, incorporated Ms. Doe's image and conversation in a documentary without her knowledge. The parties settled.

Doe v. Columbia College Chicago (Circuit Court of Cook County)

Charles Mudd represented Jane Doe, a figure model, in pursuing claims against Columbia College Chicago and various students and faculty advisors of ECHO Magazine, a student run magazine publication of Columbia Chicago. A student photographer photographed Ms. Doe in a nude drawing class without her authorization. The Defendants publishe these nude photographs of Ms. Doe without her consent. The claims brought against the Defendants involved violation of Ms. Doe's privacy and her right of publicity, among others. The parties settled.

News sites: Student Press Law Center

Doe v. Westby (United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois)

Charles Mudd represented Jane Doe in pursuing claims against Brian Westby and others for the unauthorized use of her photograph in Yahoo! personals online. The Complaint alleged that the Defendants used Ms. Doe's photograph in conjunction with provacative language to solicit responses to the Yahoo! personal ads. The Complaint further alleged that the Defendants then used the email addresses obtained to advertise adult websites. Ms. Doe and Brian Westby settled.

Doe v. UPC (United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois)

Charles Mudd represented a female individual whose ex-fiance distributed intimate photographs to family, friends, and work colleagues. The parties settled.

Lindberg v. Iroquois Memorial Hospital, et al., 06-2106 (C.D. of Illinois)

Our firm represents the Plaintiff in this action against Defendants for violation of federal and state wiretapping statutes (and related privacy claims) stemming from the intentional, electronic interception of a private conversation, the subsequent distribution of the private conversation, and ultimate use of the private conversation to harm the Plaintiff.