Michael Lewittes, Plaintiff, -against- Jamie Cohen, Joshua Blume, and Marilyn Blume, Defendants. 03 Civ. 189 (CSH) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK May 24, 2004, Decided May 26, 2004, Filed ... According to the Third Amended Complaint (the "Complaint"), plaintiff, Michael Lewittes, [*3] is a journalist and editor who specializes in celebrity reporting, a screenwriter, and a commentator who frequently appears on national television programs. Defendant Marilyn Blume, formerly known as Marilyn Lewittes, was once married to plaintiff's brother, David Lewittes. Defendant Joshua Blume, also known as Jamie Cohen, is Marilyn Blume's brother. In March 2000, Marilyn Blume was in the midst of divorce proceedings against David Lewittes, who is not a party to the present action. On or about March 30, 2000, Marilyn Blume, with the aid and support of Joshua Blume, registered the domain named "www.lewittes.com" and created a website lodged at that location. n1 When accessed, one incarnation n2 of this website promised to provide details, including documents and subjective accounts, relating to the divorce proceedings involving Marilyn Blume and David Lewittes. While the website was, apparently, never completed, one page that was available at the site featured a title in bold and large font text reading "the story will be told," accompanied by a statement in smaller font reading "ask the doorman ... and that closeted editor of a certain paper" (ellipsis in original). In addition, [*4] this same page displayed a statement reading "soon to be a major motion picture ..." (ellipsis in original). The page also contained links labeled "women," "jewish," and "and one more," none if which, it seems, was active. A later version of the site, n3 created on or about June 24, 2002, claimed, simply, that the site was "currently under development," invited "comments," and incorporated links labeled "cnn," "nyl," and "post." ... CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court makes the following Order: 1. Plaintiff's motion to file his Third Amended Complaint is granted nunc pro tunc. Its allegations relate back to the filing of the first complaint on January 9, 2003. 2. Plaintiff's first, second, and sixth causes of action are dismissed without prejudice. 3. Defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiff's third, fourth, and fifth causes of action are denied. 4. The stay on discovery in this case imposed by this Court's Order dated March 9, 2004 is lifted. The parties are ordered to proceed with discovery in accordance with the Civil Case Management Plan stipulated to by the parties and endorsed by the Court on March 22, 2004. Dated: May 24, 2004 CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 08:48:12 PDT