PITTSBURGH – A website operator claims that it is immune from a lawsuit brought by a Bridgeville man against itself and Google that claims his mugshot from an arrest made 17 years ago was recently listed on the website’s database of currently imprisoned individuals.
Mitchell P. Gedid of Bridgeville first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Jan. 27 versus Travis Paul Grant, Marielle Lizette Grant and Kyle David Grant of Longwood, Fla., Google, LLC of Mountain View, Calif. and John Doe Corporation.
According to the lawsuit, a website operated by the non-corporate defendants at www.bailbondshq.com has a separate page allowing visitors to search an inmate database for individuals incarcerated in the state of Pennsylvania.
“On Feb. 5, 2004, the plaintiff was arrested and charged with terroristic threats and harassment by the California Borough Police in Washington County, Pennsylvania. Following said arrest, the Washington County Jail photographed plaintiff. The County made the photograph, charging information and other personal identifiers available on a government website,” the suit stated.
“All of the charges resulting in the aforesaid arrest were subsequently dismissed by a magistrate judge at the preliminary hearing stage. The Grant defendants, without plaintiff’s knowledge, permission, consent or authorization, published plaintiff’s criminal justice records from the arrest described above, including plaintiff’s mugshot on www.bailbondshq.com.”
The suit said the plaintiff learned of the posting through a Google search conducted on Nov. 26 and on subsequent occasions, which would also lead a website visitor to believe that individuals listed there are currently incarcerated.
“Despite plaintiff’s demand that the Grant defendants stop publishing plaintiff’s name, personally identifying information and photograph for pecuniary gain, the Grant defendants refuse to do so,” per the suit.
“The defendants knew or should have known that the use of plaintiff’s name and likeness for pecuniary gain on the webpages described herein was never authorized by plaintiff. This is evidenced by the fact that none of the named defendants possess the required written consent from plaintiff. Nonetheless, the defendants continue to profit, directly and indirectly, from the unauthorized use of plaintiff’s name and likeness.”
UPDATE
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Feb. 24, charging that they were not subject to personal jurisdiction in the state of Pennsylvania, the statute of limitations had expired, that the information at issue was protected speech and that the plaintiff’s criminal record made the action a frivolous lawsuit.
“The Grants have never been to Pennsylvania, nor have they transacted any business in Pennsylvania. They are Florida residents with a Florida corporation, they have no bank accounts or property in the state of Pennsylvania. The Grants’ only source of revenue is from Google AdSense. They have not reached the minimum contacts to establish jurisdiction,” the dismissal motion said, in part.
According to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the legislation considers the defendants as “re-publishers” of the information at issue, and not the original publishers, thus immunizing them from suit.
The plaintiff responded to the dismissal motion with preliminary objections on March 4, challenging the defendants’ rationales and the inclusion of the plaintiff’s criminal record as an attached exhibit, arguing that such information “scandalous and impertinent.”
“The allegations and exhibits referencing plaintiff’s criminal history are immaterial and inappropriate to the proof of the cause of action. The defendants included said scandalous and impertinent matter in an effort to cause plaintiff prejudice,” the objections said.
“The plaintiff has been prejudiced by the defendants’ violations of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure in their motion to dismiss and cannot form a proper responsive pleading. The plaintiff has been prejudiced generally by the defendants’ inclusion of scandalous and impertinent matter.”
For counts of unauthorized use of name or likeness, invasion of privacy by appropriation of name or likeness and invasion of privacy by false light, the plaintiff is seeking preliminary and/or permanent injunctive relief enjoining the defendants from using plaintiff’s name and likeness for pecuniary gain, compensatory damages ranging from $50,000 and $74,999 and such other and further relief as the Honorable Court deems appropriate, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is representing himself in this matter.
The Grant defendants are also representing themselves in this matter.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-21-000801
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com