[ad_1]
U.S. District Court
Where a dispute has arisen regarding whether Massachusetts or California law governs the question of punitive damages, the plaintiffs’ claims for defamation, trespass, false imprisonment and Massachusetts Civil Rights Act violations are subject to Massachusetts law, but California law on punitive damages should be applied with respect to the intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy claims.
“In this extraordinary and troubling case, eBay, an e-commerce company, conducted a campaign to silence Ina and David Steiner, a married couple living in Natick, Massachusetts, through harassment, stalking, and threats. The Steiners own and operate a trade publication that published critical coverage of eBay. In response, as alleged, eBay’s top executives and employees made online threats, signed the Steiners up for over fifty unwanted email subscriptions, and sent disturbing packages to their home, including fly larvae, spiders, a bloody pig mask, and a funeral wreath. The planning for this illegal campaign originated in California, where much of the online activity also took place, but other actions, like the surveillance and vandalism of the Steiners’ home, occurred in Massachusetts. As a result of the harassment campaign, seven individuals involved in the conspiracy were criminally charged and have since pleaded guilty. The Steiners filed this civil suit against multiple defendants, including eBay. Now, both eBay and the Steiners have moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether Massachusetts or California law will govern the question of punitive damages. …
“The parties agree that Massachusetts law governs questions of liability and compensatory damages but disagree on whether this Court should apply Massachusetts or California law to the issue of punitive damages for six of the Steiners’ remaining claims against eBay. The parties and the Court also agree that California and Massachusetts law conflict: punitive damages are available under California law but not under Massachusetts law for the relevant causes of action. …
“The Steiners’ claims of trespass, false imprisonment, and Massachusetts Civil Rights Act violations are rooted in actions taken in Massachusetts, chiefly the physical surveillance and vandalism that exacerbated their fear for personal safety. The defendants traveled to Natick, Massachusetts, to vandalize the Steiners’ fence, install a GPS tracker on their car, and ‘predatorily stalk and surveil’ them. … In addition to these actions, the Steiners claim the ‘incessant packages’ that arrived at their home in Massachusetts forced them to remain confined to their home and threatened to silence their blog. … In short, the most distressing conduct underlying the claims of trespass, false imprisonment, and Massachusetts Civil Rights Act violations occurred in Massachusetts.
“The torts of intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy present a closer question. The Steiners’ distress stems not only from the conduct described above — being followed, surveilled, stalked, and tailed — but also from a broader range of concerted, online conduct. The defendants bombarded the Steiners with online threats, menacing deliveries, doxing, and unwanted email subscriptions. … The defendants’ online activity, including the online threats and ordering of threatening packages, originated from eBay’s place of business in California. California is also the state where the defendants originally formed their plans to ‘intimidate, threaten to kill, torture, terrorize, stalk and silence’ the Steiners. … eBay’s California campus allegedly served as the ‘security nerve center’ where Baugh and his co-conspirators orchestrated their harassment campaign. … From there, the defendants made plans to travel from California to Massachusetts, ordered threatening packages, subscribed the Steiners to unwanted emails, sent online threats, and, once law enforcement became involved, undertook efforts to cover up the investigation. …
“As a result, with respect to the claims for trespass, false imprisonment, and Massachusetts Civil Rights Act violations, Massachusetts contacts ‘predominate, as that state is the place of injury, the place of much of the relevant conduct, and the place where the relationship between [eBay] and the [Steiners] … is centered.’ Church of Scientology of Cal. v. Flynn, 578 F. Supp. 266, 267 (D. Mass. 1984). However, with respect to the intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy claims, California’s countervailing interest in deterring such malicious and extreme conduct by its corporate domiciles prevails since the most significant of the unlawful conduct took place within its borders. Consequently, for these claims, the Steiners in this case rebut the general presumption that the law of the state where the injury occurs governs. …
“Finally, during oral argument, the Steiners singled out defamation as especially related to California. They point out that in addition to the general principles guiding Massachusetts’ choice of law approach, defamation is subject to §150 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. … Though the Steiners correctly point out that §150 applies, their conclusion that California has the most significant relationship to the defamation claim is incorrect — §150 dictates that Massachusetts law applies.”
Steiner, et al. v. eBay, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-518-24) (18 pages) (Saris, J.) (Civil Action No. 21-cv-11181-PBS) (Nov. 1, 2024).
[ad_2]
Source link