|
''Doe v. MySpace'', 528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008) is a 2008 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that affirmed a lower court decision finding that MySpace was immune under the Communications Decency Act of 1996 from liability resulting from a sexual assault of a minor.〔''Doe v. MySpace'', (528 F.3d 413 ) (5th Cir. 2008).〕 ==Facts & Procedural Posture== In the summer of 2005, Plaintiff (Julie Doe), then age thirteen, lied about her age, representing that she was eighteen years old, and created a profile on MySpace.com. In April 2006, a nineteen-year-old male (Pete Solis) contacted her through the site. The two parties communicated offline and formed a relationship. They met in person on May 12, 2006, and Solis sexually assaulted Plaintiff at this meeting. On May 13, 2006, Plaintiff's mother called the Austin Police Department to report the sexual assault of her daughter. Solis was subsequently arrested and indicted by a grand jury at the Travis County District Attorney's Office for Sexual Assault, a second degree felony.〔Doe v. MySpace, 474 F. Supp. 2d 843 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2007).〕 The minor and her mother sued MySpace and its parent, News Corp., for negligence, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. Additionally, they sued Solis, the assailant, for sexual assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress.〔 Plaintiffs first filed a lawsuit in Texas state court, however filed a motion for nonsuit which the Texas court granted. Subsequently, Plaintiffs refiled in Bronx County, New York, however this time they did not name Solis as a defendant. Defendants immediately removed the case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, to United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and simultaneously motioned for a transfer of venue, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Finally, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).〔 The Texas District Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs' negligence and gross negligence claims, finding that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the Communications Decency Act (CDA) § 230 and Texas common law. Plaintiffs withdrew their claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation; thus the District Court dismissed those claims without prejudice. Thereafter, Plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision on their negligence and gross negligence claim, arguing that § 230 is both inapplicable and further does not fully immunize MySpace from taking reasonable steps to ensure a minors' safety.〔Doe v. MySpace, 528 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2008).〕 Plaintiffs filed a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States who declined to hear the case.〔http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7723885977876502124.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Doe v. MySpace Inc.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|