twodoebs

Random Thoughts From Our Random Minds

Friday, June 03, 2005

 

More on Ziegler's Anti-Spam Lawsuit

By: doebtown
Well, because the last post received interested feedback from at least ONE loyal doebtown reader, I thought it might be worthwhile to post some new information that I have acquired with regard to this matter since I last wrote about it (this is ALMOST more just notes to myself as I continue to investigate how they're going about this, but it MIGHT be interesting to anyone else who is curious about this case):

- According to court documents, the docket number for the case is 1:05-cv-04960, the case name is LAP Ziegler, Ziegler & Associates LLP et al v. China Digital Media Corporation et al, and it's been assigned to Judge Preska.

- According to court documents, although the plaintiff is an attorney, the complaint was filed by Christopher Brennan, who also works at the firm of Ziegler, Ziegler & Associates (570 Lexington Avenue, 44th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, 212-319-7600), on behalf of Mr. Ziegler.

- According to the complaint, the e-mail address in question is saz@zza.net.

- According to the complaint, Mr. Ziegler is a securities lawyer.

- According to the complaint, the offending e-mails in question "touted the stock of Defendant China Digital Media Corporation and appeared to be part of a 'pump and dump' scheme perpetrated by Defendants John Does 1-10 with the acquiescence and assistance of Defendant China Digital Media Corporation." Complaint at 2.

- According to the complaint, "Anyone . . . who investigated the origin of the SPAM message in question . . . would have concluded that the SPAM originated from ZZA and/or Scott Ziegler. Were any such person to go to the website www.zza.net such person would believe that such e-mail came from a law firm that specializes in securities law matters. Complaint at 9.

- According to the complaint, the named defendant admits to having hired a "stock promoter" and compensated this stock promoter by giving them 600,000 free trading shares of the defendant's stock.

- According to the complaint, the named defendant has chosen not the reveal the name of this "stock promoter."

- The causes of action in the complaint are libel, conversion, trespass to chattels, negligence, unjust enrichment, trademark infringement,

- The plaintiff requests $250,000 for compensatory damages and punitive damages of $1 million for each tort count (for a grand total of $1.25 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages--that's $6.25 million for those of you who are counting along at home!) and treble damages for the trademark infringement count.


Comments:
ok counselor...what does it mean when you say "Complaint at 2" or "Complaint at 9" and what are trebel damages?

legally impaired minds want to know!

 

**********
"Complaint at 2" and "Complaint at 9" just means that the text that I quoted appears on page 2 or page 9 of the complaint. It's a citation of sorts, more for myself than for anything else.

As far as treble damages, certain statutes require that after the jury has determined the amount of the plaintiff's actual damages, the court must award three times that amount. They're usually imposed as a punishment and one of the areas where they come up quite a bit is in trademark infringement cases.

 

**********
so treble damages are also known as punitive damages?
innnnteresting!

 

**********
Well, that's not ENTIRLEY true. While treble damages ARE awarded as punishment--or punitively--they're fixed by statute at three times the amount of the plaintiff's actual damages. But what are commonly referred to as "punitive" damages are typically awarded by a jury in their discretion for malicious, evil or particularly fraudulent acts. Yes, all treble damages are, by definition punitive damages. But not all punitive damages are necessarily treble damages.

If you have questions regarding the distinction between this--or any other--complicated legal matter, you should consult with an attorney and not rely on the information provided in this blog as legal advice.

 

**********
Post a Comment

Archives

April 2005   May 2005   June 2005   July 2005   August 2005   September 2005   October 2005   November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2009   December 2009   January 2010   February 2010   March 2010   April 2010   May 2010   June 2010   July 2010   August 2010   September 2010   October 2010   November 2010   December 2010   January 2011   February 2011   March 2011   April 2011   May 2011   June 2011   July 2011   August 2011   September 2011   October 2011   November 2011   December 2011   January 2012   February 2012   March 2012   April 2012   May 2012   June 2012   July 2012   October 2012   December 2012  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Free Web Counters