At a certain point it will probably get tiring watching these spam disputes.  I can't help but note (having participated in my fair share) that in the overall scheme of things, the participants and lawyers are not really moving society forward.  There may be some doubt as an observer, but as a participant this becomes pretty clear pretty quickly.  But still, these disputes are fun to watch, and at times participate in.

I'm not quite sure what category Silverstein v. e360 et al., (07-2835) (CAS) (VBXk) falls in.  I'm not even sure what claims are asserted by the plaintiff, but they run the gamut.  Defamation, CAN SPAM, the California Spam statute, and negligence per se.  Plaintiff even pulled an interesting claim out of the hat:  the California version of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - California Penal Code section 502.

Plaintiff also sued Moniker (seemingly for providing privacy protection services? and for being advertised via non-compliant email), e360 (of Spamhaus fame) and Linhardt. 

The Court initially grants Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of particularity.  The Court also dismisses Linhardt for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff brings a motion for reconsideration seeking reconsideration of the order dismissing Linhardt.  Defendant brings another motion to dismiss.  Both are effectively denied (access the pdf version of the order here.  You can also access plaintiff's First Amended Complaint which survived the motion to dismiss here).

Is there anything new and interesting in this lawsuit?  Not really.  The lawsuit does illustrate how easy it is to get past a motion to dismiss, and the litigation costs of these disputes.