Corri McFadden v. Midley, And The Winner Is …

Corri McFadden v. Midley, And The Winner Is …
20 December 2013

Well, frankly I told you guys at the start of this matter that it’s going to be an expensive case and that’s the reason why the parties should resolve it earlier rather than later. And the problem with SLAPP motions in general is that I don’t find in my personal experience that SLAPP motions help the situation. SLAPP motions wind up making things more expensive in the long run for litigation. It is a statute which is ill thought out, ill advised, and I understand why Kazinski wants to get rid of it in federal court.
United States District Court Judge George H. Wu, 20 May 2013

In the matter of eDrop-Off Chicago LLC and Corri McFadden v. Nancy R. Burke; Midley, INC. dba; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:12-cv-04095-GW


and eDrop-Off Chicago LC, et al. v. Midley, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-03632


Merry Christmas


to Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP and Greenberg Traurig LLP.

As by our humble estimates, the total legal bill for both (May 2012 to December 2013) cases, is between $1,000,000 and $2,000,000.


The cases were settled.

United States District Court
Central District of California
Document 145
Filed 12/18/13

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the parties have reached a settlement of the above-captioned matter and are currently in the process of executing the agreement. The parties anticipate that a stipulation of dismissal will be filed within 15 days.”

United States District Court
Central District of California
Document 146
Filed 12/19/13

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure a1(a)(1)(AXii), Plaintiffs eDROP-OFF CHICAGO LLC and CORRI MCFADDEN (collectively, “eDropoff’ or “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant MIDLEY, INC. dbc PURSEBLOG.COM (“Purseblog” or “Defendant”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree that this action, including all claims asserted by Plaintiffs against Defendant in the complaint and first amended complaint, are hereby dismissed with prejudice as Plaintiffs and Defendant, by confidential settlement agreement, have reached an acceptable resolution of all matters related to this action. Plaintiffs and Defendant are to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees in connection with this action.”

United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois
Document 77
Filed 12/19/13

“MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Telephone status
hearing held on 12/19/2013 with attorneys for both sides. Pursuant to settlement, the case is dismissed with prejudice and without costs. Civil case terminated.”

Documents obtained through the services of PACER, Public Access To Court Electronic Records.

For the moment, publishing protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act remain intact.

the Court is no party’s advocate
United States District Court Judge George H. Wu, 19 September 2013

On a final note, eBay INC’s involvement was solely a matter of past history.

Greenberg Traurig LLP

Ian C. Ballon

  • “Lead counsel for eBay, Inc. in Inman v. Technicolor USA, Inc., 2011 WL 5829024 (W.D. Pa. 2011) in obtaining judgment in a toxic tort and product liability case brought in the Western District of Pennsylvania based on federal preemption under the Communications Decency Act (CDA).”
  • “Lead counsel to eBay, Inc. in copyright infringement, DMCA, and Lanham Act cases in the Central District of California.”

And here is the opinion of Tabberone about Greenberg Traurig.  Tabberone having won “80%” of their Federal cases.  Abet the opinion is directed toward an attorney who no longer works for the firm.

Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP

The sister company Edwards Wildman Palmer UK LLP had represented eBay INC.

That’s All Folks.


Court would make several observations designed to advance the parties’ discussion at the status conference. Due in no small part to the added procedural complexities impacting an anti-SLAPP motion filed in federal court (and the parties’ strategic calculations and miscalculations in the opening weeks of this litigation), the Court is utterly convinced that the parties have already spent far more time and money on this case (and this motion) than warranted. To the extent a limited amount of further briefing on this motion could avoid an exponential increase in the devotion of time and resources that would be necessary on an appeal, the option is inherently attractive.
United States District Court Judge George H. Wu, 10 October 2013


Technorati Profile
Add to Technorati Favorites
EventHorizon1984 Log
Add to Technorati Favorites


0 Responses to “Corri McFadden v. Midley, And The Winner Is …”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

December 2013
« Nov   Jan »




%d bloggers like this: