Could this be true ? defamation lawsuit ?

[KumByYa]

From: Huh? ([email protected])
Subject: PetsWarehouse Lawsuit Defense Fund
Newsgroups: rec.aquaria.marketplace
Date: 2001-07-29 15:29:07 PST



----------------------------------------------------------.
"When one hears that the majority, not the constitution,
should define civil rights, one should feel a shiver of fear.

Constitutionally guaranteed rights protect gun owners,
property owners, people of different races and
many separate religions, to name a small number.

I will work to protect the rights of all,
not just some.
-- Rama O.A. Schneider, Williamstown, Vermont
----------------------------------------------------------

A group of aqurium hobbyists who frequent the Internet Aquatic Plant
Digest have been sued in Federal court for $15,000,000 by Robert Novak
d/b/a petswarehouse.com. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. All of the defendants reside
outside of New York. The lawsuit involves allegations of defamation for
certain messages that were posted to the Aquatic Plant Digest.

A number of the named defendants have no liability insurance which will
cover this lawsuit. As New York is one of the most expensive
jurisdictions for handling litigation, a special defense fund has been
set up to help defray the legal expenses involved in the lawsuit. It is
estimated that preliminary legal expenses will run about $15,000 for
the group. If the case proceeds to trial attorney's fees and expenses
will run upwards of $50,000.

To date a number of fellow aquarists who are also attorneys have
volunteered their time on a pro bono basis. The defendants will still
need to retain local counsel to defend them in the lawsuit.

This is a special request for financial assistance to aid in the defense
of this lawsuit. All contributions are important no matter how large or
small. If you would like to contribute to the defense fund please send
your monetary contribution (check, money order or bank draft), payable
to John Benn, Trust Account, to the law offices of John R. Benn &
Associates, 104 West Third Street, Sheffield, AL 35660. All
contributions will be acknowledged. A special web page listing all
contributors by name or initials will be established shortly. Your
contribution may remain anonymous; if that is your choice, please note
it along with your contribution.

If you wish to contribute by credit card or PayPal please visit the web
site at http://www.paypal.com The email ID for contributions is
[email protected]

In the event that contributions exceed the legal expenses (everyone
hopes for an early dismissal of the lawsuit) any unused funds will be
submitted as a donation to the World Wildlife Fund.

If you are interested in learning more about this lawsuit, the
individual aquarists who have been sued, or the latest litigation news,
please visit CompuServe's Aquaria/Fish Forum at URL
<http://go.compuserve.com/fishnet>. If you are interested in
contributing any professional services to the defense effort, please
contact John Benn at [email protected].

Please feel free to distribute this notice to other aquarists,
hobbyists, pet lovers and all those you think feel strongly about
defending the issues at stake. On behalf of the defendants in this
lawsuit, I will express our collective appreciation for your
contributions.

John Benn
[email protected]

[ July 31, 2001: Message edited by: KumByYa ]

 

[randy holmes-farley]

The details are given on the Fishnet website:
http://forums.compuserve.com/vlforums/default.asp?SRV=Fishnet

 

[Nathan1]

Reposted from Fishnet:

You may not be aware of this, but PetsWarehouse (not PetWarehouse - notice the S) us suing three of its dissatisfied customers, the administrator of the list in which they posted their complaints (the Aquatic Plants Digest), a person on the list who removed a link to PetsWarehouse from his web page giving their "poor reputation" as the reason and the owner of the site that hosts the APD. Bob Novak of PetsWarehouse is suing us for libel, claiming that the complaints were lies and that he was denied the opportunity to respond to complaints on the list.

In addition, Mr. Novak has attempted to stifle discussion of this - and succeeded. This has been a hot topic on Tom Griffin's boards and Mr. Novak has emailed many participants in those threads, threatening to add them to his lawsuit.

You can read the now-locked threads on Mr. Griffin's boards at http://boards.aaquaria.com/forums.cgi?forum=35 You can also search the archives of the Aquatic Plants Digest at http://www.actwin.com/fish/aquatic-plants/index.php It's been/being discussed in the rec.aquaria groups as well.

Think about it, folks - do you want to lose your right to complain about the bad service you receive from a company? Because doing that appears to be exactly what PetsWarehouse wants to accomplish.

[ July 31, 2001: Message edited by: Nathan ]

 

[randy holmes-farley]

The lawsuit itself and a long threaded discussion is also posted there.

 

[MattM]

I just read the lawsuit and the entire thread on Compuserve.

Truly disgusting.

Is this lawsuit succeeds it will be very bad for all of us. The claims in the lawsuit list 4 or 5 things said about the company to the effect of "they have crappy service" or "I wouldn't buy from them". By these standards everyone on this or any other board could be successfully sued by any number of companies.

I intend to support the defense fund immediately.

[ July 31, 2001: Message edited by: MattM ]

 

[jdeets]

I haven't read the complaint yet, but if I remember correctly from law school, an opinion is not actionable defamation. Defamation is only actionable if something is falsely stated as fact. As long as these people didn't misstate facts, the lawsuit won't get very far. From what I'm drawing from the replies to this thread, it sounds like that is the case.

 

[Coraltank]

IMHO,we are all destined to begin or end with
IMHO!

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think it's going to go anywhere. He's just bullying people. It seems pretty pointless to me. Just a waste of time and money.

Ty

 

[jamesw]

Whether it goes anywhere or not, those people are still going to have to pay to at the VERY LEAST get the suit dismissed.

 

[jdeets]

They really should contact some organization like the ACLU for a defense.

 

[MattM]

Agreed that he probably won't pevail on the merits, but mounting a defense, or even filing motions to get a dismissal costs money that most people don't have to throw away.

That brings it down to stiffling opinion through the threat of litigation, which, to me, is even more repugnant than the actual suit.

 

[JennM]

Well, the very fact that this is happening will definitely prevent me from EVER ordering from them.

I don't care what their service is like....it isn't worth the RISK...

Just my humble OPINION (so don't sue me!)

Jenn

 

[Grumpy Vet]

Stunning....I cannot believe that a company that relies on hobbyists for their livelihood would have the cajones to pull something like this.

I thought if you told something you believed to be factual to the best of your knowledge you were allowed to say it. I swore that:

If I were to sleep w/ "Alice" and pay her 10 bucks for here services.....I can legally call her a "ho" w/o fear of repercussion.

If I go see the move "AI" and the movie sucks like an overflow w/ a 10" drain line - I am allowed to say that I thought it sucked.

Is this not a 1st Amendment thing? It is no yelling "fire" in a theater nor is it defaming or lible case as far as I can tell....it is opinions and someone's beliefs to the best of their recollection and experience.

Truly a sad day for the aquarist...

GV

 

[Anonymous]

No it is not a 1st Amendment thing. The 1st Amendment is a restriction on the government from stifling expression it does not pertain in a person to person interaction.

However defamation which is the charge has not occured here. The defendant must issue a knowingly false statement that causes harm to an individuals reputation. This has not occured thus there is no merit. This case won't likely be thrown out on it's merit, it won't even reach that far. There are many other grounds for dismissal from errors and/or ommisions in the filing.

However getting the case dismissed will cost money, hopefully an anti-SLAM countersuit will prevail and Novak will pay for all costs.

 

[redneck]

Is there anything illegal about a boycott?

 

[Grumpy Vet]

This is not the columnist Novak that writes for the papers, has a TV program and spoke at the commencement of my wife getting her Master's from Ohio State is it?

Thanks for clearing that 1 Amendment thing up for me....I went to school in TX - I'm not real bright.....

This stuff just really ticks me off......I would never consider placing an order w/ that company in the future.....and I have recently had several people recommend them for a few things I need......

Pity for them. I am oh so vocal.......

GV

 

[JennM]

No I don't suppose there is...

But for clarity, the suit has been filed by Pets Warehouse (note the PLURAL form of Pets). This company is based somewhere in New York State.

This is a different company, than www.petwarehouse.com (singular "pet"), this company sends out the nice glossy catalogues, and is based in Dayton, Ohio. I personally have had GREAT experiences dealing with this Dayton-based company, and I hope that none of this negative publicity affects them, since their names are SO close.

Jenn

 

[Reefer2b]

Seems to me that "PetWarehouse" should be greatly concerned about this too.....afterall, there's not a lot of difference between them and the bad guys "PetsWarehouse".....as word spreads this could have a lot of spill over affect on their business from hobbyists who don't pay particularly close attention.....jmho

 

[Cats_Eat_Fish]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> Well, the very fact that this is happening will definitely prevent me from EVER ordering from them.
I don't care what their service is like....it isn't worth the RISK...

Just my humble OPINION (so don't sue me!)

Jenn <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[bigtank]

People will sue for anything these days, even BS reasons like that.

If the aquarists are rich, Robert Novak will lose. If not, he will probably win the lawsuit. That's a lot of money.

I truthfully think America's reefers should sue TAAM, the people who make Rio pumps, but that would be a lot of trouble. At least that's a GOOD reason to sue someone (their products cause tank wipeouts).

What is this world coming to?