Peter Hall and Big Bad Productions, Inc. v. Earthlink Network, Inc., Docket No. 04-0384-Cv

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Earthlink’s continued receipt and retention on its system of emails sent to subscriber’s closed account did not constitute the use of a device resulting in an interception under the Wiretap Act
• recognizing validity of aggregation of claims of actual and consequential damages, breach of implied covenant of fair dealing, and negligent appropriation
• recognizing validity of aggregation of claims of actual and consequential damages, breach of implied covenant of fair dealing, and negligent appropriation
• noting that the “continued receipt of e-mail messages” that are acquired as a computer receives them constitutes interception, unlike “the acquisition of previously stored electronic communication”
• noting that “[g]enerally, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy is established as of the date of the complaint and is not reevaluated based on post-filing events”
• noting that “[g]enerally, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy is established as of the date of the complaint and is not reevaluated based on post-filing events”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).