Ciolli v. Iravani

Full title: ANTHONY CIOLLI v. HEIDE IRAVANI, et al

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Aug 27, 2009

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-cv-02601 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2009)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-cv-02601.

August 27, 2009

ORDER

LEGROME DAVIS, District Judge

AND NOW, this 27th day of August 2009, upon consideration of Defendants Ross Chanin ("Chanin") and ReputationDefender Inc.'s ("ReputationDefender") Motion to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 70-71), Plaintiff Anthony Ciolli's ("Ciolli") Memorandum of Law in Opposition thereto (Doc. No. 79), Defendants Chanin and ReputationDefender's Reply in further support thereof (Doc. No. 84), Defendant Mark Lemley's ("Lemley") Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 69), Plaintiff Ciolli's Memorandum of Law in Opposition thereto (Doc. No. 77), and Lemley's Reply in further support thereof (Doc. No. 86), Defendant Heide Iravani's ("Iravani") Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 72), and Plaintiff Ciolli's Memorandum of Law in Opposition thereto (Doc. No. 78), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant Lemley's Motion (Doc. No. 69) is GRANTED. All claims against Defendant Lemley are DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction.

2. Defendants Chanin and ReputationDefender's Motion (Doc. Nos. 70-71) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

a. All claims against Defendant Chanin are DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction.

b. Plaintiff's claim against Defendant ReputationDefender for tortious interference with contractual relations (Count VI) is DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction.

c. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant ReputationDefender for libel (Count III) and false light (Count V) survive dismissal but only to the extent that they rely on the content on the ReputationDefender website.

3. Defendant Iravani's Motion (Doc. No. 72) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

a. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Iravani for tortious interference with contractual relations (Count VI) and wrongful initiation of civil proceedings (Count I) are DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction.

b. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Iravani for libel (Count III) and false light (Count V) survive dismissal but only to the extent that they rely on the content on the ReputationDefender website.