CAN-SPAM Case Stayed Pending Resolution of 9th Cir Appeal
Judge Lasnik in the Western District recently granted CAN-SPAM plaintiff Peacefire's motion for partial summary judgment on the standing issue. Defendants appealed and sought to stay the case pending resolution of the appeal. Judge Lasnik granted the defense motion - essentially putting a hold on the case until we hear from the Ninth Circuit in Gordon: Haselton v. Quicken Loans, Inc., W.D. Wash Case No. C07-1777RSL (Order Staying the Case - Dec. 11, 2008).
I'm not sure a stay was not necessary here - as I mention in my previous post:
In some sense this case demonstrates the (likely) limited relevance of Gordon v. Virtumundo. Even an affirmance on the standing issue by the 9th Circuit (i.e., a finding that the court appropriately found that Gordon did not put forth sufficient proof that he was "adversely affected") will not do much to beat back plaintiffs such as this one who adequately plead "unique" spam-related harm. On the other hand, the 9th Circuit could come with some sweeping language that requires private CAN-SPAM to make a specific showing of harm?A ruling in the Ninth Circuit in favor of Virtumundo should not affect Peacefire's standing here. Peacefire specifically plead around (and satisfied its summary judgment burden on) the Gordon issue.
(h/t Prof. Goldman)
Comments