We have a massive case against the Better Business Bureau pending on behalf of a contractor who feels the BBB is “pay for play’. The case can be found in Maricopa County Superior Court at CV 2013-007803. Our case will be set for trial soon. Yet, Virginia’s highest court ruled on Thursday that Yelp doesn’t have to disclose the identities of online users accused by a small business owner of posting fraudulent negative reviews about his carpet-cleaning company. The claim before the court looked at a complaint brought by the owner of Hadeed Carpet Cleaning in Springfield. The owner claimed his suburban business was hit by a bunch of harsh Yelp reviews. That summer, he sued seven reviewers for defamation and demanded that Yelp disclose their identities. This is NOT like our BBB case because it is what the BBB did after the complaints is what is at issue.
The owner claimed the reviews were posted by competitors and says sales plummeted after the comments were posted. Yelp argued that without proof of his claims, the users had a First Amendment right to post anonymously. A state trial court and the Virginia Court of Appeals sided with the owner, holding Yelp in contempt for not turning over the names. The company then took its case to the Virginia Court. The justices reviewing the case concluded that the lower-court judge lacked the authority to make Yelp unmask the reviewers.
States the opinion:
In sum, we conclude that the circuit court was not empowered to enforce the non-party subpoena duces tecum directing Yelp to produce documents located in California in connection with the owner’s underlying defamation action against the John Doe defendants in the Virginia circuit court . . .
Although the General Assembly has expressly authorized Virginia courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident parties, it has not expressly authorized Virginia courts to compel nonresident non-parties to produce documents located outside of Virginia.
“The decision is a blow to Virginia small businesses,” Mr. Hadeed’s attorney, Raighne Delaney, told Law Blog by email. He said he could still petition for a rehearing.
Yelp’s litigation director, Aaron Schur, posted a statement about the ruling on the company’s official blog.
“This case highlights the need for stronger online free speech protection in Virginia and across the country,” he said. “Businesses that want to bully and intimidate customers who express displeasure with less than stellar consumer experiences should not be able to obtain their personal information without providing sufficient evidence that they have been wronged, which Hadeed failed to do in this case.”
At the law firm of William A. Miller, PLLC in Scottsdale we ‘get the nuances’ of this type of litigation. We are happy to look over your BBB problems with their arbitrary reporting or if someone is not telling the truth about your business on Yelp, Google, etc. Call us at 602-319-6899 or stop by at 8170 North 86th Place, suite 208 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 for coffee and a chat. We also handle, Breach of contract, Non-compete agreements, Non-disclosure agreements, Employee theft and embezzlement, Insurance purchases and enforcement of policy coverage, Negotiation and/or enforcement of commercial leases, Negligence and gross negligence resulting in losses, Intentional acts causing a company to suffer damages, Tortious interference with contractual relationships, Unjust enrichment, Real Estate fraud, Consumer fraud, Conversion/Theft, Intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation, Business torts and Real estate title & escrow.

In 1988, I was fortunate enough to meet a recent U of A graduate named A Cohn. His office was next door to me. He soon became a friend and client. Before the age of 30 he had become a millionaire many times over. I once asked him his secret for such great success. His answer… “I actually read the documents”. That’s it? He reads? Wow. They do not teach you that in B-school. Well, across Arizona and the US many public companies have adopted bylaws over the past few years requiring shareholders suing them to do so in a single court. This is a concerted effort to limit and control the Plaintiff’s bar and it’s working.
A resent treatise found that— 96% of mergers over $1 billion in 2014 ended up in shareholder litigation. Just 40% of deals faced suits in more than one jurisdiction, down from 62% in 2013, according to Cornerstone Research and the Wall Street Journal. The number of individual complaints filed per merger fell to about 5%, its lowest level since 2008.
These hardball suits, which always accuse boards of selling too cheaply, too quickly or failing to protect shareholders’ best interests, are very toxic and costly. Critics including corporate lawyers and executives, say they constitute a “deal burden” and often fail to uncover any wrongdoing. The Plaintiff’s bar say they keep boards on their toes and, in many many cases, can recover money for the investors who lost out.
Multi-jurisdictional litigation has been a particular gripe of corporate advisers. Responding to lawsuits in multiple courts around the country raises defense costs and encourages bad settlements that do little for shareholders while enriching plaintiffs’ lawyers, they say. So, you are going to see more of these bylaw provisions dictating jurisdictional mandates for aggrieved shareholders. Like A Cohn said back in 1988, “read the documents”. It’s that simple.
We have experience in these types of M & A lawsuits. For almost 30 years, we have worked in Scottsdale and Paradise Valley Arizona on behalf of and up against limited liability companies, public companies and not-for profit companies. Take away? Always read the bylaws and corporate governess documents before you invest. Call Bill Miller at 602.319.6899 to discuss any corporate law issue, business, real estate or commercial legal questions you may have. The law office is office is located at 8170 North 86th Place, Suite 208 Scottsdale, AZ 85258

US firms paid big time to settle Foreign Corrupt Practices Act investigations last year, the latest sign that bribery enforcement remains hot after all these years of suspect leaders in the DOJ and Whitehouse. Corporate America paid out an average $157 million to settle FCPA investigations in 2014, a record figure that far surpassed the…

In Focus Point Properties, LLC v. Johnson, the Arizona Appeals Court held that when a trustee signs a contract on behalf of a trust, that individual is not personally liable for breaching the contract. Even if it appears to name only the trustee in an individual capacity. In this matter, the listing stated that the…

Talk about complex litigation. We represent a company who has been tossed into a longstanding CERCLA case in California. The Leach Site and the Mouren-Laurens Site are in Compton, California. These sites have been the subject of hardball litigation between the owners and operators for almost 17 years. The plaintiff in that case, Rev. 973…