Comments on: Court Allows “Battery by GIF” Claim to Proceed–Eichenwald v. Rivello https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/06/court-allows-battery-by-gif-claim-to-proceed-eichenwald-v-rivello.htm Thu, 14 Jun 2018 19:41:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: David S. Gingras https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/06/court-allows-battery-by-gif-claim-to-proceed-eichenwald-v-rivello.htm#comment-2118 Thu, 14 Jun 2018 19:41:00 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=18842#comment-2118 Fascinating case and I while I normally don’t like judges who twist the law to fit the facts, I like the judge’s particular reasoning here; i.e., “This looks, smells, feels, and sounds like a tort, thus a tort it must be.” That logic may not always work, but it sure seems appropriate here.

One question though — why is this case pending in Maryland? The decision says the plaintiff lives in Texas, and it mentions that he alleged the harm occurred in Texas. I would have thought he’d sue in that highly pro-plaintiff forum. Was there a previous ruling on personal jurisdiction? Did the plaintiff decide that maybe the defendant didn’t realize he lived in Texas? Or maybe since there’s already a pending criminal case in Maryland against the defendant, that seemed like the most favorable place to sue? After some quick searching, I can’t seem to find an easy answer to this.

I’m just surprised to see this sort of case pending in the defendant’s home jurisdiction.

]]> By: IronMant https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2018/06/court-allows-battery-by-gif-claim-to-proceed-eichenwald-v-rivello.htm#comment-2117 Thu, 07 Jun 2018 08:56:00 +0000 https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=18842#comment-2117 oh for fuck’s sake…

]]>