May 25, 2012

Rajagopal v. Does

NOTE: The information and commentary contained in this database entry are based on court filings and other informational sources that may contain unproven allegations made by the parties. The truthfulness and accuracy of such information is likely to be in dispute. Information contained in this entry is current as of the last event mentioned in the "Description" section below; additional proceedings might have taken place in this matter since this event.

Posted March 15th, 2011 by CMLP Staff

Summary

Threat Type: Lawsuit	Date: 10/22/2010
Status: Pending	Location: Virginia
Disposition:	Verdict/Settlement Amount: n/a
Legal Claims: Defamation; Tortious Interference
Usha Rajagopal, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, sued ten John Does for defamation and various business torts in Virginia state court. The claims stem from reviews of Rajagopal posted by the defendants on Google.com. Rajagopal also subpoenaed Google to determine the... read full description

Parties

Party Issuing Legal Threat:	Party Receiving Legal Threat:
Usha Rajagopal	John Does 1-10
Type of Party:	Type of Party:
Individual	Individual
Location of Party:	Location of Party:
California	United States
Legal Counsel:	Legal Counsel:
Domingo J. Rivera	Michael H. Page, Paul A. Levy, Public Citizen Litigation Group; Rebecca K. Glenberg, ACLU of Virginia

Description

Usha Rajagopal, a plastic surgeon in San Francisco, sued ten John Does for defamation and various business torts in Virginia state court. The claims stem from reviews of Rajagopal posted by the defendants on Google.com. Rajagopal also subpoenaed Google to determine the identities of five of the Does.

One of the Does, Cannoli38, moved to quash the subpoena. He argued that because he and the other Does have a First Amendment right to speak anonymously, Rajagopal must make a five-part showing that satisfies the Dendrite standard to identify the Does. Cannoli38 argued that Rajagopal did not give the Does noticed as required by Dendrite, nor did she provide any evidence supporting her claims against the Does.

Cannoli38 alleged that the Does' reviews consisted solely of opinion statements, which are protected by the First Amendment, and restatements of an article from SFWeekly, a San Francisco news site, that posted a story about Rajagopal's advertising practices and allegations brought against her by the California Medical Board. Cannoli38 argued that the balance of the equities weighed against Rajagopal.

Cannoli38 also called upon Rajagopal and her attorney to be sanctioned, as he argued the lawsuit is meritless, has no ties to Virginia, and was meant to be an end run around California's anti-SLAPP law, which would likely prevent Rajagopal from pursuing the case in her home state.

See Federici v Pignotti et al

Submitted by Monica Pignotti on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 20:50.

If any of the John Doe defendants are reading this, you might want to check out Federici v Pignotti et al. I was also an out of state defendant (I'm in Florida) in a Virginia lawsuit that was just dismissed on March 4, 2011 on the grounds of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Our case started in state court but we removed it to Federal court where we were successful in having it dismissed. It looks like there may be some similarities. Documents are available on this site that you may find helpful:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/federici-v-pignotti-et-al

Copyright 2007-11 Citizen Media Law Project and respective authors. Except where otherwise noted,
content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License: Details.
Use of this site is pursuant to our Terms of Use and Privacy Notice.

Rajagopal v. Does

See Federici v Pignotti et al

Database Resources

Browse by Subject

Recently Updated Threat Entries

Navigation

Rajagopal v. Does

See Federici v Pignotti et al

Database Resources

Browse by Subject

Citizen Media Law Briefs

Recently Updated Threat Entries

Navigation