Pallorium, Inc. v. Jared
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
PALLORIUM, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STEPHEN J. JARED, Defendant and Respondent. | G036124 (Super. Ct. No. 03CC12794) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Geoffrey T. Glass, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Office of Gary Kurtz and Gary Kurtz for Plaintiff and Appellant.
The Morris Law Firm and Aaron P. Morris for Defendant and Respondent.
Pallorium, Inc., appeals from a judgment entered after a bench trial in which the trial court found Stephen J. Jared, doing business as Osirusoft Research and Engineering (Jared), was immune from liability pursuant to two provisions of the federal Communications Decency Act (the Act), title 47 United States Code section 230 (section 230). Jared developed a filter using open relay data to block unsolicited commercial
e-mail from coming to his servers and network system. Jared made his filter and open relay database available at no cost through his Web site. At some point, Pallorium's Internet protocol (IP) address was listed on Jared's database as an open relay, which identified it as an IP address through which people could anonymously send unsolicited commercial e-mail.
Pallorium sued Jared for negligence, negligent and intentional interference with economic advantage and prospective economic advantage, and unfair business practices. Pallorium argues the trial court erroneously allowed Jared to amend his answer to include the immunity defense, denied its right to a jury trial, and found Jared immune. Because we find Jared immune from liability pursuant to one provision of the Act, we need not address his claims regarding the other provision and the denial of his right to a jury trial. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS[1]
Jared was tired of receiving unsolicited commercial e-mail â€
