USLegal Reporter

A Pennsylvania state judge has tossed out a law suit against DontDateHimGirl.com. The website allows women to post photos, comments and warnings about men they have dated. Pittsburgh attorney Todd Hollis filed suit against website owner Tasha Cunningham claiming that his reputation had been defamed because of reportly false comments made by women about him. 

Allegheny County Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr. ruled that he did not have juridisdiction in the case and that it should be brought in Florida, where the website originates. 

Sources: http://www.miamiherald.com/103/story/68618.html , http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1176122648557

In a 5-4 decision issued today, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a coalition of States and environmental groups petitioning for the reversal of a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision allowing the EPA to indefinitely postpone the regulation of automobile carbon dioxide emission levels under the Clean Air Act. On remand, the EPA is required to explain its reluctance in terms of the hurdles set by the Act rather than through the impermissible “laundry list” offered to date.

At issue was not only the interpretation of key language in the Clean Air Act and the propriety of the EPA’s “judgment” that regulations need not be propagated, but also whether the Petitioners had legal “standing” to bring the case. Five Justices ruled that the State of Massachusetts had standing both as a sovereign State (rather than an “individual” to whom proving the elements of standing is more difficult) and also through procedural rights to challenge EPA decision-making granted by the Act.

The Court’s four conservative Justices dissented on all points. The White House and a coalition of auto manufacturers and associated States were disappointed by the decision.

The case is Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. No. 05-1120. Decided April 2, 2007. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf

A Federal Appeals Court has ruled that a Virginia federal court judge did not have the authority last April to order the U.S. government to hand over evidence from the criminal trial of Zacarias Moussaoui to the families of 9/11 victims for use in their civil lawsuits against airline companies and others. The 9/11 Plaintiffs requested grand jury transcripts from Moussaoui’s criminal trial. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the New York federal court alone has the authority to order discovery in the civil cases as Congress limited jurisdiction of the actions to the Southern District of New York. The 4th Circuit held that the plaintiffs could return to the Eastern District of Virginia to request a transfer of the grand jury transcripts to the Southern District of New York, but that the New York judges must control the general discovery process. The case was decided on March 14, 2007.

See http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/064611.P.pdf 

2/27/07 - Richmond County Civil Court Judge Philip S. Straniere held in Sayeedi v. Walser, 10610/06, that a single sale on eBay was insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over the seller under the state’s long-arm statute. Plaintiff/buyer Sayeedi sued defendant/seller Walser for an engine which was described as new that he purchased for $1,444. After delivery to Sayeedi in New York, the engine was determined to have a broken connecting rod and damaged camshaft, requiring $1,150 for repairs.

The court held that the single auction failed to satisfy the minimum contacts standard used to confer New York jurisdiction on the defendant. The court reasoned that the seller’s auction listing did not purposefully invoke the benefits and protections of New York law, since the ultimate shipping destination is completely controlled by the potential buyers. In finding that the ultimate destination was not within the realm of contemplation by the seller, the court held that asserting jurisdiction in such a case would contravene notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Source:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1173175402839

Case:

http://www.nylawyer.com/adgifs/decisions/030607straniere.pdf