Sang v. Hai

A Chinatown attorney Mr. Ming Hai's failed to block a lawsuit (12 Civ. 7103) against himself. The US District court for Southern District of New York ruled a complaint filed by his former client would move ahead.

What is interesting is that one of the legal grounds Mr. Hai suggested was First-to-File Doctrine. Mr. Hai argued that the federal case should be thrown out because he had sued his former client first in a state court. However, the doctrine is about cases filed in federal court, not for cases filed concurrently in a federal court and a state court. It's shocking to hear an attorney either wished the court didn't understand this simple and commonly referred doctrine or actually himself did not know.

The plaintiff alleged Mr. Hai defamed her when he made public statement through blogs and interviews, saying San was a thief, sexually irresponsible to her own dog, and made romantic advances on him.

The court did dismissed an allegation that Mr. Hai had breached fiduciary duty when he disseminated confidential information he obtained through client-attorney relationship to the press. The court noted that although Mr. Hai might have violated professional conduct rules, it did not raise to the level of a cause of action.

Also interesting was the invasion of privacy claim regarding Sang's photographs posted by Mr. Hai in his Tencent Micro-blog, a tweeter-like service in China. General population in China hold an over sensitive stance on using personal portrait without explicit consent. Chinese law is very vague, but the courts have consistently sided with the plaintiffs in privacy cases. The US law separates commercial usage from editorial usages, and usually recognize press privilege and rights in free speech. The district court, however, agreed with Sang Lan that Mr. Hai's blog was used to promote his business thus 'not newsworthy'. Therefore, the court denied Mr. Hai's motion to dismiss the invasion of privacy claim.

Online Defamation Lawsuits Swamp Courthouses Around Globe

A lady in London was facing a libel action (HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. Claim number HQ12D05081 Mr Kirby Kearns and Mrs Lesley Kemp) after she complained about her employer on twitter. Lesley Kemp was paid £146 for her translation work by a company Resolution Productions. However, £25 were deducted as bank fees. Kempt rented on her twitter account and called the company 'disgraceful'.

Qatar based Resolutions Productions paid the £25, then sued her for libel over her tweets. They are seeking £50,000 in damages and £70,000 in cost.

Across the Atlantic Ocean, Amy Nicholls of South Carolina was sued (The Court of Common Pleas in Medina County, Ohio, Case No. 13CIV0351) by an Ohio-based company Med Express over a negative review she left at the company's eBay seller account. Nicholls was surprised by a postage-due for products she ordered online which she paid in full plus shipping fees, and left a negative review "'Order arrived with postage due with no communication from seller beforehand." on the transaction. Med Express admitted the comment was true, but nevertheless not happy it might hurt their business.

What was absent from the picture was eBay, the ecommerce giant where the transaction and user feedbacks took place. EBay set up a reviewing system as an essential and critical feature to remedy the uncertainty and unfamiliarity of an online auction place. If eBay did not back up its user who used the system exactly as it is supposed to work, then eBay literally set up a trap for its users. In this case, standing by is not only coward, unethical, but also suicidal.

So you could be sued for comments made on Twitter, or negative reviews left at eBay even though they are truthful and factual. You might find a lawyer who thought your case was significant enough that they would defend you pro bono. However, for every publicized cases with happy ending, there are many who have concluded the other way.