Software delfino dating 100percentpure dating site
But plaintiffs' cited evidence consisted of improperly spliced, separate excerpts of Buffington's declaration and the arrest affidavit. 1026.) Thus, an "important purpose of [the CDA] was to encourage [Internet] service providers to self-regulate the dissemination of offensive materials over their services." (Zeran v.
As a result of the improper splicing, plaintiffs created purported content that did not exist in either document. Applicable law Section 230(c)(1) states that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." The statute goes on to provide that causes of action inconsistent with it under state law are precluded: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. was to control the exposure of minors to indecent material" over the Internet.
On August 1, Special Agent Wells made a follow-up request to Buffington for Agilent to investigate the log-in history (between June 27 and July 10) to determine whether the alias "dr_dweezil2000.txt" also belonged to Moore.
Agilent thereafter determined that this alias was also traceable to the Agilent computer assigned to Moore.
Although Buffington was told at the time that the FBI "would be faxing it," he did not receive the faxed copy of the arrest affidavit until April 7, 2003. 20 and that the person responsible for the anonymous postings was [145 Cal. 330), and Congress's desire "to encourage service providers to self-regulate the dissemination of offensive material over their services." (Id. 331.) The court held that section 230(c)(1) conferred "broad immunity" (Zeran, supra, at p. 331-334.) At least three other federal circuit courts have followed the Fourth Circuit's decision in Zeran, supra, 129 F.3d 327. Buffington informed Special Agent Wells of Agilent's findings. On August 12, Buffington and Agilent's Management Support Consultant, Stephanie Pierce, fn. he should not be using Agilent's computer systems for anything relating to [plaintiffs] or any other personal issues." In February 2003, Special Agent Wells contacted Buffington to advise him that the FBI planned to arrest Moore for conduct relating to Delfino. AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant and Respondent. We therefore find that summary judgment in favor of Agilent was proper and will affirm. Plaintiffs alleged that the anonymous threats against them occurred between April and July 2002, while an appeal was pending in unrelated litigation brought by plaintiffs' former employer, Varian Medical Systems (and others), against plaintiffs. 5 The threats alleged in the complaint--most of which were directed solely at Delfino--were either e-mail messages sent to Delfino or were messages posted on the Yahoo! App.4th 797] "suffer humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress." Plaintiffs alleged on information and belief that Agilent "was informed and knew that Moore was using its computer system to" send the threatening messages. They argue that because Agilent had no CDA immunity and it failed to take measures to protect plaintiffs from Moore's threatening communications, it is subject to negligence liability. Standard of Review As we have acknowledged, "[c]onstruction and application of a statute involve questions of law, which require independent review." (Murphy v. App.3d 1445, 1451 [de novo review of summary judgment motion founded on defense of immunity].) Likewise, since summary judgment motions involve purely questions of law, we review the granting of summary judgment de novo. On July 29, Buffington telephoned Special Agent Wells to introduce himself and to indicate that Agilent would cooperate fully with the FBI. 14, 2006.] MICHELANGELO DELFINO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. J., and Mc Adams, J., concurring.) COUNSEL Michelangelo Delfino, in pro. We hold further that plaintiffs did not make a prima facie showing to support a claim against Agilent under theories of ratification, respondeat superior, or negligent supervision/retention. 3 It included a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and a purported claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against Moore and Agilent. Plaintiffs alleged further that Agilent was aware that Moore was using its computer system to threaten plaintiffs and that it took no action to prevent its employee from continuing to make his threats over the Internet. 6 Most of the threatening e-mails and postings were sent by an individual using the Yahoo screen name "crack_smoking_jesus"; Moore later admitted to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that he had used this pseudonym. 7 The first cause of action of the complaint, captioned "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress," alleged that Moore's conduct in sending the anonymous e-mails and postings was intentional and malicious, causing plaintiffs to [145 Cal. They assert that Agilent is not immune from suit under section 230 of the CDA. The internal investigation was handled primarily by Agilent's IT Security Consultant and Program Manager for CITSIRT (Corporate Information Technology Security Incident Response Team), Bill Rolfe, and its EHS & Security Manager, Douglas Buffington.