We represent a wide variety of clients in a myriad of litigation contexts in state and federal courts throughout the United States. While licensed with the bars in Illinois, Indiana, and Connecticut, Charles Lee Mudd Jr. has appeared as pro hac vice counsel in all regions of the United States.
Circle Group Holdings v. Yahoo!, Inc. (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois)
Charles Mudd represented two anonymous individuals who posted communications online regarding Circle Group Holdings. Circle Group Holdings sought personally identifying information regarding these two anonymous individuals, among others, from Yahoo!, Inc. On behalf of these anonymous individuals, Charles Mudd filed a motion to intervene and intervene using fictitious names as well as a motion to vacate an order permitting discovery against Yahoo!, Inc. by Circle Group Holdings. During the pendency of these motions, Charles Mudd has successfully settled on behalf of one of the anonymous individuals to the benefit of the parties.
Cullen, et al. v. Ybarrolaza, et al. (Tennessee)
Charles Mudd represented Phillip Ybarrolaza in an action
filed against Ybarrolaza and several Doe Defendants for alleged
defamatory statements published by the Doe Defendants at Ybarrolaza's
website, www.teamster.net, regarding the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs
sought information regarding the Doe Defendants from Ybarrolaza
and sought to hold him liable for the statements. On behalf
of Ybarrolaza, Charles Mudd filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional
grounds and immunity under § 230 of the Communications
Decency Act. The Court granted Ybarrolaza's motion to dismiss
on jurisdictional grounds.
E. Van Cullens v. John Doe, 2003 L 000111 (18th Judicial Circuit, DuPage County, Illinois)
Charles Mudd represented the Defendant, John Doe. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant made defamatory communications regarding Westell Technologies, Inc. that harmed the Plaintiff, Westell's CEO. On behalf of the Defendant, Charles Mudd filed a motion to dismiss all claims. The Court granted Defendant's motion and the case was dismissed. Pleadings can be read here.
Mobilisa, Inc. v. Does (Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County) (pro hac vice admission)
Charles Mudd represents third-party The Suggestion Box, Inc. (www.theAnonymousEmail.com) in this action. Mobilisa, Inc. has filed an action against several John Does for alleged intrusion upon Mobilisa's computers. One of these defendants has been alleged to have obtained a private email written by an officer of Mobilisa, Inc. and forwarded the email to numerous third parties. This individual allegedly used an anonymous email address obtained from TheAnonymousEmail.com.
Mobilisa, Inc. has sought the individual's personally identifying information from TheAnonymousEmail.com through a motion for leave to conduct limited discovery. On behalf of TheAnonymousEmail.com, Charles Mudd has filed an opposition to this motion. Oral arguments were heard in Phoenix, Arizona on December 2, 2005. While the Court initially adopted the Cahill standard, the Court permitted discovery.
Soon after the trial court ordered TheAnonymousEmail.com to disclose John Doe's information, our firm filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals of Arizona seeking reversal of the trial court's order. Oral arguments were heard September 4, 2007. The Court of Appeals of Arizona issued a substantive ruling on the matter of seeking the identities of anonymous speakers online.
SI03, Inc. v. Does (Northern District of Illinois and District of Idaho)
Advanced Field Services, Inc. v. Millennium Information Services, Inc., 05 C 2881 (N.D. Illinois)
We represented Plaintiff Advanced Field Services, Inc. in litigating claims against Millennium Information Services, Inc. and James Paprocki for trade secret misappropriation, tortious interference with business relations, breach of contract (non-compete agreement and non-disclosure agreement), defamation and related claims. We filed a motion for preliminary injunction on its behalf.
Phillips v. Atlas Galleries, Inc., 07 CV 003385 (Circuit Court of Cook County)
Our firm represents international artist Frederick Phillips in litigation filed against Atlas Galleries, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois. The Complaint includes claims for declaratory judgment seeking to declare the contract between the parties unconscionable; fraudulent inducement; breach of contract; and violation of the Illinois Consignment of Art Act.
Circle Group Holdings v. Yahoo!, Inc. (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois)
Charles Mudd represented two anonymous individuals who posted communications online regarding Circle Group Holdings. Circle Group Holdings sought personally identifying information regarding these two anonymous individuals, among others, from Yahoo!, Inc. On behalf of these anonymous individuals, Charles Mudd filed a motion to intervene and intervene using fictitious names as well as a motion to vacate an order permitting discovery against Yahoo!, Inc. by Circle Group Holdings. During the pendency of these motions, Charles Mudd has successfully settled on behalf of one of the anonymous individuals to the benefit of the parties.
Colombik v. Jooste, 06 L 1730 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois)
Our firm successfully obtained dismissal of a defamation claim brought against our client. In this action, the Plaintiff misinterpreted a Google search result containing fragmented portions of a web page. Specifically, the Plaintiff construed the fragments of text as attributing an offensive statement to our client. In fact, the web page contains an index of Internet posts that demonstrates the offensive statement as contained within a distinct post from that attributed to our client. Aside from the substantive issues, we moved to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction and because the statute of limitations had elapsed.
The Court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction and because the statute of limitations had elapsed.
Cullen, et al. v. Ybarrolaza, et al. (Tennessee)
Charles Mudd represented Phillip Ybarrolaza in an action filed against Ybarrolaza and several Doe Defendants for alleged defamatory statements published by the Doe Defendants at Ybarrolaza's website, www.teamster.net, regarding the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs sought information regarding the Doe Defendants from Ybarrolaza and sought to hold him liable for the statements. On behalf of Ybarrolaza, Charles Mudd filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds and immunity under § 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The Court granted Ybarrolaza's motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds.
E. Van Cullens v. John Doe, 2003 L 000111 (18th Judicial Circuit, DuPage County, Illinois)
Charles Mudd represented the Defendant, John Doe. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant made defamatory communications regarding Westell Technologies, Inc. that harmed the Plaintiff, Westell's CEO. On behalf of the Defendant, Charles Mudd filed a motion to dismiss all claims. The Court granted Defendant's motion and the case was dismissed. Pleadings can be read here.
F/X v. Brian Smith (United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois)
Charles Mudd represented F/X, a Denmark company, in pursuing trade secret, breach of contract, defamation, false light, and tortious interference claims against Brian Smith, a former programmer who worked for F/X. This matter was settled to the satisfaction of our client.
Macumber v. West Suburban Medical Center, et al., 04 L 11415 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois)
We represented the Plaintiffs in this action brought against the Defendants for defamation, false light, tortious interference with business relations, and other related claims.
iParenting v. Auerbach, 04 C 3840 (United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois)
Charles Mudd represented the Defendant who the Plaintiffs alleged communicated defamatory statements. The parties reached settlement.
Tamburo v. Andrews, 06 CV 51 (Will County, Illinois)
We successfully dismissed a meritless action brought by John Tamburo for alleged commercial defamation against our client.
The Plaintiff, John Tamburo, filed an appeal before the Illinois Appellate Court. We successfully argued against the appeal. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the lower court's ruling.
The Plaintiff has since appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois Supreme Court declined to hear Plaintiff's appeal.
Tamburo v. Dworkin, et al., 04 C 3317 (Northern District of Illinois)
We represent all but one of the multiple defendants sued by Plaintiff John Tamburo for defamation and a host of other claims. Plaintiff Tamburo obtained facts contained within some of the Defendants' online databases of dog pedigrees using spider programs. Plaintiff Tamburo later incorporated this date into his own commercial product. The Defendants learned of this and complained of Plaintiff Tamburo's conduct online. Specifically, the Defendants ontend that Plaintiff Tamburo obtained the data without authorization. This case also involves issues of copyright of databases. Two of the Defendants reside outside the United States.
On behalf of the Defendants, Charles Mudd filed a motion to dismiss upon a variety of grounds. The Court granted the motion to dismiss as John Tamburo did not constitute the true party in interest. The Court further instructed John Tamburo, who had proceeded pro se, to obtain counsel. Defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss should John Tamburo proceed with counsel in this action.
Allison v. Wise, et al., 07 cv 143 (District of Colorado)
Allison v. Wise, et al., Case 1:07-cv-00143-REB-PAC (Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division)
Charles Lee Mudd Jr. represented Jeremy Wise in litigation brought against Mr. Wise and others for alleged copyright infringement of cheat codes.
In Colorado, Charles filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of Jeremy Wise for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court granted this motion. Allison thereafter filed suit in Ohio. Allison filed a motion seeking to exclude evidence that suggests he did not author cheat codes at issue in the litigation.
Arista Records LLC, et al. v. David
Greubel, 05 CV 531 (N.D. Texas)
UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. Does 1-10, 06 CV 860 (N.D. Texas)
These RIAA lawsuits both relate to the Recording Industry's pursuit of the Greubel family for alleged file sharing. Initially, our firm represented David Greubel. After the RIAA recognized that David Greubel, the parent of four children, had no involvement in any file-sharing activity, the RIAA filed a subsequent suit against his for children for alleged copyright infringement. We now represent the Greubel children. Nearly all of the children have filed answers to the amended complaint in the 2006 action. Discovery has begun.
Best Vacuum, Inc. v. Ian Design, Inc., 04 C 2249 (N.D. Illinois)
We successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of our defendant-client who had been sued for alleged trademark infringement by Best Vacuum, Inc. of Illinois. Best Vacuum, Inc. contended that Ian Design, Inc.'s use of the domains "bestvacuumcleaner.com" and "bestchoicevacuums.com" infringed its alleged mark "best vacuum." Ian Design, Inc. opposed such allegations. On behalf of Ian Design, Inc., we also successfully defeated Best Vacuum's motion for preliminary injunction. In response to the Plaintiff filing its motion for summary judgment, we filed a cross motion for summary judgment. The trial court held that "best vacuum" was not a protectable mark.
Scott Eversoll, et al. v. Earl Clark, et al., 04 C 6457 (N.D. Illinois)
We represent Scott Eversoll and Marty Jensen in a copyright infringement action brough against Earl Clark and other parties for infringement of the song "I Found Jesus on the Jailhouse Floor.
Plaintiffs have settled with all but Earl Clark and Earl Clark Music. Pushing forward against these final defendants, we obtained default judgment, entered the judgment in a foreign jurisdiction, and have successfully collected royalties on behalf of our clients.
F/X v. Brian Smith (United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois)
Charles Mudd represented F/X, a Denmark company, in pursuing trade secret, breach of contract, defamation, false light, and tortious interference claims against Brian Smith, a former programmer who worked for F/X. This matter was settled to the satisfaction of our client.
Lions Gate Entertainment, Inc., et al. v. CafePress.com, Inc., et al., 06 CV 7917 (C.D. California
Our firm has represented shop owner defendants in litigation brought by Lions Gate Entertainment and other parties for alleged trademark infringement, copyright infringement, unfair competition, and related claims.
Tamburo v. Dworkin, et al., 04 C 3317 (N.D. Ill.)
We represent all but one of the multiple defendants sued by Plaintiff John Tamburo for defamation and a host of other claims. Plaintiff Tamburo obtained facts contained within some of the Defendants' online databases of dog pedigrees using spider programs. Plaintiff Tamburo later incorporated this date into his own commercial product. The Defendants learned of this and complained of Plaintiff Tamburo's conduct online. Specifically, the Defendants ontend that Plaintiff Tamburo obtained the data without authorization. This case also involves issues of copyright of databases. Two of the Defendants reside outside the United States.
On behalf of the Defendants, Charles Mudd filed a motion to dismiss upon a variety of grounds. The Court granted the motion to dismiss as John Tamburo did not constitute the true party in interest. The Court further instructed John Tamburo, who had proceeded pro se, to obtain counsel. He did so. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The Court granted this motion.
This matter is on appeal in the Seventh Circuit.
Trudeau, et al. v. Lanoue, et al. 04 C 7165 (N.D. Ill.)
We represented the Defendants in an action brought by Kevin Trudeau and Direct Response Associates for alleged cybersquatting. The Defendants disputed the allegations.
Doe v. "Chicago"
Charles Mudd represented a woman who had been filmed without her knowledge against a foreign entertainment company and related entities. The Complaint alleged that the Defendants filmed Ms. Doe without her knowledge, incorporated Ms. Doe's image and conversation in a documentary without her knowledge. The parties settled.
Doe v. Columbia College Chicago (Circuit Court of Cook County)
Charles Mudd represented Jane Doe, a figure model, in pursuing claims against Columbia College Chicago and various students and faculty advisors of ECHO Magazine, a student run magazine publication of Columbia Chicago. A student photographer photographed Ms. Doe in a nude drawing class without her authorization. The Defendants publishe these nude photographs of Ms. Doe without her consent. The claims brought against the Defendants involved violation of Ms. Doe's privacy and her right of publicity, among others. The parties settled.
News sites: Student Press Law Center
News sites: Student Press Law Center
Kloser, et al. v. Leisure Technician, et al., 06 CV 1668 (District of Maryland)
Our firm represents the Plaintiffs in this action against Defendants for violations of federal and state wiretapping statutes stemming from the intentional misconfiguration of Plaintiffs' client email settings such that the Defendants received and monitored email being sent to Plaintiffs in response as replies to previously delivered confidential email. This matter settled to the satisfaction of our clients.
Doe v. UPC (United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois)
Charles Mudd represented a female individual whose ex-fiance distributed intimate photographs to family, friends, and work colleagues. The parties settled.
Lindberg v. Iroquois Memorial Hospital, et al., 06-2106 (C.D. of Illinois)
Our firm represented the Plaintiff in this action against Defendants for violation of federal and state wiretapping statutes (and related privacy claims) stemming from the intentional, electronic interception of a private conversation, the subsequent distribution of the private conversation, and ultimate use of the private conversation to harm the Plaintiff.
Steinbach v. Village of Forest Park, et al., 06 CV 4215 (N.D. Illinois)
Our firm represented Commissioner Theresa Steinbach in this action against Defendants for violation of federal and state wiretapping statutes (and related privacy claims) for unauthorized intrusion into Commissioner Steinbach's private email account and distribution of private emails to the Mayor of the Village of Forest Park.