Unfortunately, iHub won that lawsuit since the cas
Post# of 96892
Posted On: 04/08/2015 11:20:10 AM
Re: intelligentPMC #10185
Unfortunately, iHub won that lawsuit since the case with Mina Mar was dismissed with prejudice.
For the Record - Past Litigation Involving Investors Hub
Return to Summary
Investorshub.com, Inc., et al., vs. Mina Mar Group, Inc., et. al. (January 2011) (United States)
United States District Court, Northern District of Florida
Case No. 4:11-CV-00009-RH-WCS
Summary: This lawsuit was filed by iHub in United States Federal Court, requesting the court to grant iHub declaratory relief by invalidating a default judgment Mina Mar obtained in a Canadian court. iHub did not defend the Canadian lawsuit.
Outcome: Final Judgment in favor of iHub on 6/20/2011 in the first United States federal court judgment ever issued under The SPEECH Act. The U.S. District Court found that:
Canadian law does not provide as much protection of speech as the First Amendement, federal law, and Florida law; and
Canadian law does not provide the protections provided by the Communications Decency Act
Key excerpt from the judgment:
22. The Court hereby declares that the Foreign Defamation Judgment in the matter of Mina Mar Group, Inc., et al. v. Investorshub.com, et al., Court File No. CV-08-364413-0000, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, is not enforceable in the United States pursuant to the SPEECH Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 4101-4105, and any orders entered in connection therewith are invalid and unenforceable in the United States.
Comments: iHub had previously sought a similar order in January, 2009, prior to enactment of both the Florida libel tourism law and the federal SPEECH Act. The U.S. Federal court declined to assume jurisdiction over the foreign parties and dismissed the case without prejudice - meaning the court did not rule on the merits of the case. It was scenarios such as this that prompted legislation of anti-libel tourism statutes in several states including Florida (July 2009), followed by the federal SPEECH Act (August 2010). After the enactment of these important laws, iHub was successful in having the Canadian judgment and all related orders declared unenforceable in the United States. The Mina Mar parties originally attempted to defend the action; after being presented with a draft Rule 11 motion which sought sanctions for the incorrect facts and false allegations contained their answer, they filed amended answers removing all of the false statements and all of their affirmative defenses. Subsequently, Mina Mar agreed to a Stipulated Judgment in favor of iHub, and waived enforcement of their default Canadian judgment worldwide and all Canadian proceedings were withdrawn.
In the Media
RCFP: SPEECH Act celebrates one year anniversary, as its influence spreads overseas
The SPEECH Act isn’t a huge change in the law because American courts traditionally avoid enforcing unconstitutional judgments, Wimmer said. It hasn’t sharply decreased the number of foreign suits, but it is starting to make plaintiffs in other countries realize that American courts won’t enforce decisions that are inconsistent with U.S. libel law, he said.
That’s the effect the SPEECH Act had in InvestorsHub.com v. Mina Mar, in the Northern District of Florida.
Mina Mar is a Canadian company that claimed statements on InvestorsHub’s online message board defamed it. Unlike in the United States, a Canadian plaintiff does not have to show that the defendant made the defamatory statement with actual malice.
Mina Mar won in Canada and filed suit in Florida to collect a $100,000 judgment. But, after InvestorsHub cited the SPEECH Act in its complaint for declaratory relief in January, Mina Mar quickly abandoned its efforts to get the money.
“The act is very powerful in its clarity because very shortly after we moved for declaratory relief, the defendant here pretty much conceded that it was going to lose,” said attorney Deanna Shullman, who represented InvestorsHub.
Even without the SPEECH Act, InvestorsHub likely would have won because Florida is one of the few states that offer statutory protection against libel tourism.
Letters Blogatory: Case of the Day: InvestorsHub.com v. Mina Mar Group
Media Insurance Blog - US SPEECH Act is bad news for libel tourism
Los Anageles Daily Journal - Libel Tourism trip gets cut short
In InvestorsHub.com, Inc. v. Mina Mar Group, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87566 (N.D. Fla. June 20, 2011), a Canadian company surrendered its claims in a stipulated final judgment, acknowledging that its Canadian defamation judgment against a U.S. company was not enforceable in Florida because Canadian law does not provide as much protection of speech as the First Amendment and Florida law.
Source:
For the Record - Past Litigation Involving Investors Hub
Return to Summary
Investorshub.com, Inc., et al., vs. Mina Mar Group, Inc., et. al. (January 2011) (United States)
United States District Court, Northern District of Florida
Case No. 4:11-CV-00009-RH-WCS
Summary: This lawsuit was filed by iHub in United States Federal Court, requesting the court to grant iHub declaratory relief by invalidating a default judgment Mina Mar obtained in a Canadian court. iHub did not defend the Canadian lawsuit.
Outcome: Final Judgment in favor of iHub on 6/20/2011 in the first United States federal court judgment ever issued under The SPEECH Act. The U.S. District Court found that:
Canadian law does not provide as much protection of speech as the First Amendement, federal law, and Florida law; and
Canadian law does not provide the protections provided by the Communications Decency Act
Key excerpt from the judgment:
22. The Court hereby declares that the Foreign Defamation Judgment in the matter of Mina Mar Group, Inc., et al. v. Investorshub.com, et al., Court File No. CV-08-364413-0000, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, is not enforceable in the United States pursuant to the SPEECH Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 4101-4105, and any orders entered in connection therewith are invalid and unenforceable in the United States.
Comments: iHub had previously sought a similar order in January, 2009, prior to enactment of both the Florida libel tourism law and the federal SPEECH Act. The U.S. Federal court declined to assume jurisdiction over the foreign parties and dismissed the case without prejudice - meaning the court did not rule on the merits of the case. It was scenarios such as this that prompted legislation of anti-libel tourism statutes in several states including Florida (July 2009), followed by the federal SPEECH Act (August 2010). After the enactment of these important laws, iHub was successful in having the Canadian judgment and all related orders declared unenforceable in the United States. The Mina Mar parties originally attempted to defend the action; after being presented with a draft Rule 11 motion which sought sanctions for the incorrect facts and false allegations contained their answer, they filed amended answers removing all of the false statements and all of their affirmative defenses. Subsequently, Mina Mar agreed to a Stipulated Judgment in favor of iHub, and waived enforcement of their default Canadian judgment worldwide and all Canadian proceedings were withdrawn.
In the Media
RCFP: SPEECH Act celebrates one year anniversary, as its influence spreads overseas
The SPEECH Act isn’t a huge change in the law because American courts traditionally avoid enforcing unconstitutional judgments, Wimmer said. It hasn’t sharply decreased the number of foreign suits, but it is starting to make plaintiffs in other countries realize that American courts won’t enforce decisions that are inconsistent with U.S. libel law, he said.
That’s the effect the SPEECH Act had in InvestorsHub.com v. Mina Mar, in the Northern District of Florida.
Mina Mar is a Canadian company that claimed statements on InvestorsHub’s online message board defamed it. Unlike in the United States, a Canadian plaintiff does not have to show that the defendant made the defamatory statement with actual malice.
Mina Mar won in Canada and filed suit in Florida to collect a $100,000 judgment. But, after InvestorsHub cited the SPEECH Act in its complaint for declaratory relief in January, Mina Mar quickly abandoned its efforts to get the money.
“The act is very powerful in its clarity because very shortly after we moved for declaratory relief, the defendant here pretty much conceded that it was going to lose,” said attorney Deanna Shullman, who represented InvestorsHub.
Even without the SPEECH Act, InvestorsHub likely would have won because Florida is one of the few states that offer statutory protection against libel tourism.
Letters Blogatory: Case of the Day: InvestorsHub.com v. Mina Mar Group
Media Insurance Blog - US SPEECH Act is bad news for libel tourism
Los Anageles Daily Journal - Libel Tourism trip gets cut short
In InvestorsHub.com, Inc. v. Mina Mar Group, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87566 (N.D. Fla. June 20, 2011), a Canadian company surrendered its claims in a stipulated final judgment, acknowledging that its Canadian defamation judgment against a U.S. company was not enforceable in Florida because Canadian law does not provide as much protection of speech as the First Amendment and Florida law.
Source:
(0)
(0)