§Why CasetextPricing

Beyond Systems, Inc. v. Kraft Foods, Inc. et al

REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION to Strike AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES RELATED TO ISP STANDING MOTION Alternative Relief

14 Cited authorities

  1. Arbaugh v. Y H Corp.

    546 U.S. 500 (2006)   Cited 7,800 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Title VII's numerosity requirement is nonjurisdictional even though it serves the important policy goal of “spar[ing] very small businesses from Title VII liability”

  2. Gordon v. Virtumundo

    575 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 227 times
    Holding that a plaintiff who merely provided e-mail accounts and hosted a website on leased server space did not have standing under CANSPAM

  3. Sigmon Coal Co., Inc. v. Apfel

    226 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2000)   Cited 101 times
    Holding statute not absurd because, although literal application of statute produced somewhat anomalous result, plausible explanation existed

  4. Luskin's, Inc. v. Consumer Protection Division

    353 Md. 335 (Md. 1999)   Cited 71 times
    Holding that § 13-301 MCPA claims require proof of scienter

  5. Consumer Protection v. Luskins

    120 Md. App. 1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1998)   Cited 24 times
    In Consumer Prot. Div. v. Luskin's, Inc., 120 Md. App. 1, 26-27 (1998), rev'd in part on other grounds, Luskin's, Inc. v. Consumer Prot. Div., 353 Md. 335 (1999), we said, "In enacting this [consumer protection] legislation, the General Assembly concluded that it would take strong protective and preventive steps to investigate unlawful consumer practices, to assist the public in obtaining relief from these practices, and to prevent these practices from occurring in Maryland."

  6. Asis Internet Services v. Consumerbargaingiveaways, LLC

    622 F. Supp. 2d 935 (N.D. Cal. 2009)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that plaintiff's claim was not preempted even though it did not plead reliance and damages

  7. Beyond Systems, Inc. v. Keynetics, Inc.

    422 F. Supp. 2d 523 (D. Md. 2006)   Cited 15 times
    Applying Section 230 to a claim under the Maryland Commercial Electronic Mail Act

  8. Blaylock v. Johns Hopkins Federal Credit Union

    152 Md. App. 338 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2003)   Cited 16 times
    In Blaylock, the intermediate appellate court addressed the issue of whether a consumer's settlement with a credit union, without adjudication of the credit union's fault, rendered the consumer the prevailing party for the purpose of attorney's fees.

  9. Hillman v. I.R.S

    250 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2001)   Cited 11 times
    Noting this exception to the literal application of a statute

  10. Steuart Investment Co. v. Bauer Dredging Const. Co.

    323 F. Supp. 907 (D. Md. 1971)   Cited 23 times

    Civ. A. No. 70-700-N. March 12, 1971. W. B. Ewers, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiffs. Alva P. Weaver, III, Baltimore, Md., for defendants. NORTHROP, Chief Judge. This is a case under Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction concerning the Bauer Dredging Construction Co., Inc., a Texas corporation, and the Steuart Petroleum Company and Steuart Investment Company, both Delaware corporations. Plaintiffs have moved to strike an affirmative defense raising the applicability of 46 U.S.C. § 183-189 limiting an

  11. Section 1332 - Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs

    28 U.S.C. § 1332   Cited 111,223 times   572 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court has jurisdiction over action between diverse citizens "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000"

  12. Section 17529.5 - Unlawful advertising in commercial email advertisement

    Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17529.5   Cited 95 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Listing three "circumstances" under which it is "illegal for any person or entity to advertise in a commercial e-mail"

  13. Section 7707 - Effect on other laws

    15 U.S.C. § 7707   Cited 57 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Providing CAN-SPAM does not preempt state "trespass" laws

  14. Section 14-3003 - Penalty

    Md. Code, Com. § 14-3003

    A person who violates this subtitle is liable for reasonable attorney's fees and for damages: (1) To the recipient of commercial electronic mail, in an amount equal to the greater of $500 or the recipient's actual damages; (2) To the third party without whose permission the third party's Internet domain name or electronic mail address was used, in an amount equal to the greater of $500 or the third party's actual damages; and (3) To an interactive computer service provider, in an amount equal to