Yesterday’s Lawsuit of the Day — Jones v. Minkin, a $44 million lawsuit against yours truly, Above the Law publisher David Minkin, and Dead Horse Media (now known as Breaking Media) — has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, University of Miami law professor Donald Jones.

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)(B), the dismissal is without prejudice. If Professor Jones wants to refile, he should note the statute of limitations (which had already run as to most of our posts about him by the time his complaint was filed).

There was NO SETTLEMENT in this case. Above the Law has made no changes to our prior posts, and we have paid no money to Professor Jones. The case was dismissed by the plaintiff without anything from our side, except a letter from our lawyer.

UPDATE (3:35 PM): We have offered Professor Jones a guest post on Above the Law in which to provide his side of the story, about either the lawsuit or the underlying facts. We have offered to keep the comments on that post closed or open, depending on his preference. (And we would have done this in the first place, had he made such a request.)

A huge thanks to our counsel, Marc Randazza.

Comment from Randazza, plus links to the notice of voluntary dismissal and other news outlets and blogs — we will UPDATE continually, so do check back for fresh links — after the jump.

For the first time in over three years of operation, Above the Law has been sued. We feel the lawsuit has no merit, but we will not comment further on this ongoing litigation. To access the pro se complaint, coverage by other news outlets and blogs, and ATL’s prior posts about Professor Donald Jones, click on the links collected after the jump.

Please note that we have closed comments on this post, out of respect for the judicial process. Thank you.

UPDATE: We will be continually updating this post with links to news and blogosphere coverage. We have already added new links from the ABA Journal, the WSJ Law Blog, and the Volokh Conspiracy, among other sources.

The fresh links will appear AFTER THE JUMP, so check them out there. Thanks.

If you were hoping for the AutoAdmit lawsuit to result in courtroom drama, with Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey breaking down in tears on the stand, then we’re sorry to disappoint you. The case has ended, somewhat anticlimactically.

Last week, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their case against the remaining defendants. From the Hartford Courant:

Two former Yale University law school students have quietly settled a high-profile lawsuit they brought against about two dozen anonymous authors who the students said defamed and threatened them by posting malicious falsehoods on an Internet message board.

Perhaps plaintiff Brittan Heller felt ready to put down her sword, now that she’s happily married. But note that the dismissal is without prejudice (so check yo self, Pauliewalnuts).

What did the plaintiffs get out of filing their lawsuit?

But with a hot blonde model as the plaintiff. From our sister site, Fashionista:

Liskula Cohen’s modeled for Versace and Armani and landed international Vogue covers, but recently she’s made less fashionable headlines.

Last year, a doorman smashed her over the head with a vodka bottle, and this year she’s sued Google to reveal the identity of an especially cruel blogger. The both tragic and anonymous person used Google’s blogger.com platform to unleash constant rants about the blond’s imagined sexual habits, but argued in court that the words were “non-actionable opinion and/or hyperbole.”

Find out how this fared, at Fashionista.

Internet Anonymity at its Worst [Fashionista]

Lindsay Lohan is kind of over as far as celebrity gossip goes: no more car accidents, no more sloppy drunk photographs, and in a relatively stable relationship. But now Lohan’s girlfriend, Samantha Ronson, is getting pulled back into the tabloids, and she’s dragging First Amendment attorney Martin Garbus along with her.

Martin Garbus prides himself on being “one of the country’s leading trial lawyers” and for “aggressively represent[ing] his commercial and criminal clients in both the courts and the public media.” He sounded like the perfect fit when Samantha Ronson decided to file a defamation suit against celeb gossip blogger Perez Hilton for calling her a “lezbot” and accusing her of selling access to Lohan to paparazzi.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the suit did not go well. Ronson didn’t want to pay Garbus’s exorbitant bills. She lost the suit. Now she’s on the hook for her and Hilton’s legal bills, to the tune of over $200k. Her solution was to sue Garbus for malpractice. He sued her right back for unpaid legal bills.

Ironically, the suit transformed Garbus, who had called celebrity blogs “trash,” into an unwitting comrade in Hilton’s quest for dirt on Ronson.

In order to defend himself, Garbus is going rooting in the garbage of Lohan and Ronson’s life together:

Garbus’ attorneys have identified Lohan as the most critical witness in the case besides the two litigants and have requested information concerning their relationship, finances, possible drug use and alleged rehab stays. In one measure of how far his defense plans to go, they have asked for copies of every text message and e-mail between the women over the last two years.

A trial is scheduled for May in Los Angeles. The parties spent the last few months squabbling over procedures for deposing Lohan and Ronson after lawyers for the women raised concerns that videotapes of the pretrial Q & As would be leaked to the media.

The only winner in all this seems to be Perez Hilton:

Watching from the sidelines, Hilton’s lawyer said he was stunned Ronson was pursuing the case. Coverage of the first suit had extended the life and increased the audience for a small blog item, he said, and the malpractice claim was making it even bigger.

Lindsay Lohan’s gal pal Samantha Ronson in big legal spat [Los Angeles Times/Newsday]

Back in 2007, Judge Ernest B. Murphy won his libel case case against the Boston Herald. The Herald had reported that Murphy was soft on crime and, well, nobody puts Baby in the corner.

But winning just wasn’t enough for Judge Murphy. After he won he sent two threatening letters to Patrick Purcell, publisher of the Herald, on court stationery. The letters, which included the use of all-caps as pioneered by Chief Justice John Marshall, demanded that the Herald drop its appeal and hand deliver a check for half a million dollars more than the judgment, plus interest.

According to the Boston Globe, “Purcell testified that the letters were intimidating and looked like ransom notes.”

Yesterday, Murphy agreed to resign. Murphy claimed to have post-traumatic stress from his battle with the Herald. The Commission on Judicial Conduct had recommended a $25,000 fine, but they may amend their report in light of Murphy’s resignation.

We’d make a joke about how a judge could incur psychologically destructive stress from participating in a lawsuit, but we’re terrified that Murphy will sue us under the ADA.

Judge who sued Herald agrees to leave bench [Boston Globe via WSJ Law Blog]

Earlier: Murphy v. Boston Herald: Some Beantown Benchslappery

The embarrassing Google hit is one of the great new fears of the modern age. If the number-one Google hit for your name is your work bio, Corporate Challenge race-time results, or nothing at all, consider yourself lucky. You could have something worse, like, “Kashmir Hill. Is that her real name or her porn screen name?” Or something much worse, like the derogatory comments that spurred the Autoadmit lawsuit.

Seattle lawyer Shakespear Feyissa is in a Google predicament. He wants a ten-year-old article removed from his college newspaper’s archives. The school administrators say sure, but the college newspaper editors are adamantly opposed. We love principled undergrads. From the Seattle Times:

While a senior at [Seattle Pacific University] 10 years ago, Feyissa was arrested on suspicion of attempted sexual assault and suspended. He was never charged, but the suspension stuck — indefinitely.

Feyissa complained that his punishment was more severe because of his race, he told the student newspaper at the time, but an investigation dismissed his claim.

He’s a lawyer now, and that article — still among the first hits for Feyissa’s name on Google — continues to hurt him personally and professionally, he said. So Feyissa, at 33, has been pressuring SPU to help clear his name.

We question his tactics. By going after the school, he has succeeded in getting the original Falcon article knocked back a few pages when Google searching his name. But due to the media coverage of his crusade, he now has tons of hits with the paragraph intro, “A decade ago Shakespear Feyissa was arrested on suspicion of attempted sexual assault.”

Read more, after the jump.

See the links below for more details. Also note this, from Marc Randazza of the Legal Satyricon:

For anyone who is curious, I have personally spoken to the University of Texas adjunct who happens to bear the [same name as the formerly anonymous defendant known as :D].

He IS NOT the person in question. I would appreciate it if any readers would keep that in mind, and educate anyone who might hold this mistaken belief. I can confirm with 100% certainty that the [individual identified as :D] in the complaint is not an attorney and is not a law professor.

It has been a while since our last posting about the AutoAdmit lawsuit, so feel free to discuss the latest developments in the comments. If you’re not familiar with the case, peruse the postings collected here.

Another Amended Complaint in the Auto Admit Case [Legal Satyricon]
Yale Students’ Lawsuit Unmasks Anonymous Trolls, Opens Pandora’s Box [Wired]
Yale Students Name Austinite Who Allegedly Defamed Them [keyetv.com]
Lawyers for 2 Female Students at Yale Law School Learn Identities of Anonymous Online Attackers [Chronicle of Higher Education]

Earlier this year, we wrote about a puzzling situation involving Jeremy Pitcock, a successful young IP litigator in New York. Pitcock left Kasowitz Benson, where he served as head of the intellectual property practice, and joined Morgan & Finnegan. After Morgan’s hiring of Pitcock was touted as a coup — in IP Law360, and in a Morgan press release — Kasowitz issued a statement claiming they fired him for “extremely inappropriate personal conduct.” The following month, Pitcock left Morgan & Finnegan, under unclear circumstances.

Now Jeremy Pitcock is back on the legal scene, this time as a plaintiff. From the American Lawyer:

[Pitcock] filed a defamation lawsuit against the [Kasowitz] firm Thursday seeking more than $90 million for what he calls the “malicious and unwarranted smear campaign” that followed his dismissal.

The lawsuit, Pitcock v. Kasowitz Benson, was filed in the Southern District of New York. It has been assigned to Judge John E. Sprizzo.

So what exactly was the allegedly inappropriate conduct by Pitcock?

Find out, after the jump.

* Spitzer may — or make that will — resign today. [CNN; New York Times]

* Obama wins Mississippi, picks up more Texas delegates than Clinton. [CNN]

* Gitmo war-crimes tribunal to hear detainee’s case. [MSNBC]

* Houses passes proposal to create independent ethics panel. [Washington Post]

* Another French trader taken into custody in connection with gigantic trading scandal. [AP]

* Irish appeals court chews up, spits out, libel ruling against restaurant critic. [AFP via Drudge]

In last week’s ATL / Lateral Link survey, we asked you to submit your nominations for Lawyer of the Year. Today, you get to vote!

The nominees, and select comments explaining why, are below:

Aaron Charney

For both the attention focused, success of action, and for the visibility [he] brought to the secondary issue of partner/associate relations (but not those kinds of relations).

Alberto Gonzales

Exemplifies why lawyers are so mistrusted in this country.

Barack Obama

The man had the credentials to do Biglaw. He chose public service instead. Although he is obviously politically ambitious, he at least appears to be in it for the people. He’s almost as hot as Judicial Hottie Jeffrey Sutton. I mean, did you see the Obama Girl videos? We’ve all got a crush on Obama. And he just might be president next year.

Hillary Clinton

She’s fabulous.

Loyola 2L

He’s generated the most thoughtful discussion of law school. That, and perhaps the publicity will help him get a job.

Ray Beckerman

For his tireless defense and continuous commentary in countless RIAA cases.

Whoever helps Chipmunk lady.

Because.

We know that last one should really be a 2008 Lawyer of the Year, not a 2007 Lawyer of the Year, but we just don’t care. You demanded the nomination right now.

So who should win? Cast your vote below.

Update: This survey is now closed. Click here for the results.

There’s news to report in the lawsuit filed by two female Yale Law School students over various allegedly defamatory and threatening comments posted about them on AutoAdmit.com. The amended complaint, which was delayed in arriving, has finally been filed. You can check it out here.

For some thoughts on the amended complaint by Professor Dave Hoffman, who has established himself as the expert on all things AutoAdmit-related, see here. As Hoffman notes, the most significant change is the dropping of Anthony Ciolli as a defendant.

In response to this news, Ciolli issued this statement:

I am pleased to see that the Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed me from this suit. Including me in the suit in the first place was legally unsupportable. I never posted a single defamatory or invasive statement. I told the plaintiffs that from the start, and I provided them with a sworn declaration to that effect.

Had I remained as a defendant, the only theory could have been rooted in a desire to overturn Section 230. As I was merely an employee of AutoAdmit, leaving me in the suit would have been akin to suing a Google employee for anything found on a web page hosted by that company - even if Google was not responsible for the content. The weakness of that theory was apparent to me from the beginning, as were the ramifications of its unlikely success — an explosion of liability for every internet service provider in America.

You can read the whole thing over at Professor Marc Randazza’s blog, The Legal Satyricon. Congratulations to Ciolli and to Professor Randazza, who was representing him, on the good news.

Former Penn Law Student Dropped from Autoadmit Lawsuit [Concurring Opinions]
Anthony Ciolli Dropped from Auto Admit Lawsuit [The Legal Satyricon]
Doe v. pauliewalnuts et al. [Amended Complaint (PDF)]

Earlier: What the Heck Is Going on with Doe v. Ciolli?
Has AutoAdmit Been Pwn3d?

Remember the lawsuit filed by two female Yale Law School students over various allegedly defamatory and threatening comments posted about them on AutoAdmit.com? The plaintiffs are in the process of amending their complaint, and they’ve sought extra time in which to do so. From a tipster:

[T]he third motion for an extension of time was requested October 4, and it asked for 30 days. I can’t imagine them going to a fourth motion, so the deadline should be fast approaching around this weekend.

That said… it appears from the first couple of motions they didn’t have any real leads and were still investigating, and now they may have a real lead.

Doe 1 et al v. Ciolli et al [Justia]

Earlier: Has AutoAdmit Been Pwn3d?

* SCOTUS to hear some pretty interesting cases next term. [Washington Post; New York Times; CNN]

* Apparently, Ross Perot owns the Magna Carta, for now. [CNN]

* Jack Bauer arrested for DUI, was allegedly speaking in an urgent, raspy tone. [MSNBC]

* Attorney sues Larry Birkhead for defamation. [MSNBC]

* Calls for campus paper editor to resign. [CNN]

There has been some discussion already, but here’s a dedicated thread for a topic that there’s no shortage of opinions on: Rutgers basketball player Kia Vaughn’s defamation lawsuit against radio host Don Imus.

Thus far, reactions seem to be similar. From our tipster:

It seems like a likely loser, because I don’t see a false statement of fact. I don’t think anyone really believes Imus was trying to impute unchastity to the Rutgers basketball team (i.e., calling them prostitutes); rather, he was making a really inappropriate and racist joke, and everyone understood it as such.

Nevertheless, although it’s a legal loser, I predict Imus will settle as a gesture of goodwill. Perhaps a scholarship will be set up.

Professor Ann Althouse is dubious:

It’s hard not to be distracted by Imus’s large pile of money. Would it kill him to share? But I’d hate to think one could win defamation suits on a theory like this.

David Nieporent concurs:

Imus’s comments might have been nasty and uncalled for, but calling someone a ‘nappy headed ho’ is not defamatory unless it is interpreted as an actual accusation that the person is a prostitute.

Fine, the claim based on “ho” may be a no-go. But what about the allegation of nappy-headedness? As one commenter notes: “[A]ll of the women on the Rutgers team had straightened hair.”

Good point. And to some people — e.g., Glamour editors — alleging that someone has nappy hair is defamatory per se.

Don Imus Sued by Rutgers Basketball Player [ABC News]
Rutgers basketball player sues Imus [AP via MSNBC]
“Don Imus referred to my client as an unchaste woman. That was and is a lie.” [Althouse]
Imus in the Courtroom, Update [Overlawyered]

* Vick counsel divided over plea. [CBS 46]

* Crooked NBA ref may also plead. [SportsLine.com; SI.com]

* Rutgers player sues Imus for defamation. [MSNBC]

* While passenger sues Lohan in alleged angry car chase. [CNN]

* Interesting article on “De-Criminalizing Mental Illness” in courts, legislature, and streets. [Time]

* Who is this really protecting? Do women really need someone to tell us we can’t date this guy? Judging by an unscientific sample of good women dating assholes, kind of. [Feministing]

* Angelina’s lawyer self-deprecates; Angelina doesn’t disagree with his bone-headedness; even Jon Stewart is not immune to her charms. [Legal Profession Blog]

* ABC and Fox look the same to me right now. [BreitBart]

* If 22-year-old graduates with little (if any) teaching experience are fortunate enough to get a coveted, resume- and Ivy-worthy job with Teach for America, they will get health benefits — plus a free pass to say things like “I found my fellow teachers intelligent, caring and effective” and “I have no idea why so many low-income parents make sacrifices to send their kids to private schools” (to peers who did indeed survive public schools) — before bailing for law school. [Citizen-Times]

* And because I am grateful to live in the free world, I encourage everyone to voice his or her opinions whenever given the chance. Of course, these bloggers do so with full disclosure of their identities in the face of harsh political consequences, but we can’t help that we’re cowardly, coddled, self-obsessed risk-averse lawyers living in the U.S. [All Africa]

The blogosphere is ablaze with discussion of the AutoAdmit lawsuit. We collect and summarize the commentary in this linkwrap.

(We read all the blogs, so you don’t have to! You can thank us later.)

1. Students File Suit Against Ex-AutoAdmit Director, Others [WSJ Law Blog]

If you haven’t done so already, read this post first. It contains the most detailed factual background about the case. You can also access the Complaint itself by clicking here (PDF).

2. Yale law students sue over “the scummiest kind of sexually offensive tripe” at AutoAdmit [Althouse]

Professor Ann Althouse has her doubts about this lawsuit:

So this is the 21st century? Where courts award punitive damages for offensive words and pictures? Isn’t “the scummiest kind of sexually offensive tripe” exactly what we always used to say people had to put up with in a free country? Man, that was so 20th century!

3. Suing Autodmit [Instapundit]

Professor Glenn Reynolds — who kindly links to our post, by the way — largely agrees with Professor Althouse. He sarcastically observes: “Stuff that offends dumb hicks in the heartland is constitutionally protected. Stuff that offends Yale Law Students must be stamped out!”

More links, after the jump.

* So what’s the solution here? Let another state’s appellate court hear the appeals? [AP via Kane County Chronicle via How Appealing]

* Come on, you can get the man a bond hearing earlier than three weeks from now. They’re killing me with this; let him go, damnit! [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

* Mississippi sues State Farm for bad faith. [Jurist]

* Texas is uncharacteristically deliberate about executing somebody. [CNN]

* What is it with lawyers and sports tickets? [WSJ Law Blog]

Anthony Ciolli, the former Chief Education Director of the AutoAdmit.com website, and various posters on that message board have been sued. A civil action has been filed against them in federal district court in Connecticut.

The claims made against defendants are as follows: copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501; appropriation of another’s name or likeness; unreasonable publicity given to another’s life; publicity that places another in a false light before the public; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; and defamation.

For more details, check out this thread at AutoAdmit.com. There was some debate over at AutoAdmit concerning the authenticity of the posting. But we emailed David Rosen, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the case, and he confirmed:

We did post something giving notice of a lawsuit. I’m not available for comment for the moment. You can check with Dorothy McLaughlin at Keker & Van Nest — they are lead counsel.

We have contacted Dorothy McLaughlin Sachs and will let you know when we hear back from her.

Our speculation is that the “Doe I” and “Doe II” plaintiffs are two of the individuals interviewed in this Washington Post article about AutoAdmit. The individual attacked on AutoAdmit.com who figures most prominently in the Post article is a female Yale Law School student. Plaintiffs’ counsel, David Rosen, is an alumnus of Yale Law School who also teaches at YLS.

This is a developing story. We’ll bring you more information as soon as we have it. If someone might be able to send us a copy of the summons and complaint, we’d be most grateful. Thanks.

Update: The WSJ Law Blog has a detailed post, including lots of additional information, over here.

For those of you who are curious, the full text of the AutoAdmit.com posting appears after the jump.

(Gavel bang: commenters.)

Notice of lawsuit pending vs. certain AutoAdmit posters [AutoAdmit.com / Xoxohth]
Students File Suit Against AutoAdmit Director, Others [WSJ Law Blog]
Harsh Words Die Hard on the Web [Washington Post]
David N. Rosen bio [Yale Law School]
David Rosen & Associates [Best Lawyers in America]