Ricci v. Go Daddy.com
7:13-cv-07729
S.D.N.Y.Apr 28, 2014Background
- Plaintiffs allege retaliation by the Union against Ricci beginning with a 2002 meeting, including job loss and being blackballed for less senior members.
- Plaintiffs claim defamatory newsletters about them and their daughter were distributed on Aug 22, 2012; Aug 23, 2013; and Sep 10, 2013 and posted on two websites.
- Go Daddy hosted the two newsletters on those websites and is alleged to have failed to remove them or investigate the claims.
- Go Daddy moved to dismiss under the Communications Decency Act (CDA), arguing immunity as a passive hosting provider.
- The Union moved to dismiss pro se complaints alleging retaliation and breach of the NLRA duty of fair representation, with statute of limitations in question.
- The court granted dismissal of all federal claims, declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, and noted collateral jurisdiction for NLRA-related claims is limited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CDA immunity for hosting third-party content | Ricci plaintiffs argue Go Daddy is liable as publisher for failure to remove content. | Go Daddy is a passive host and immune under the CDA for third-party content. | Go Daddy immune; dismissal granted. |
| Liability as publisher for failure to remove newsletters | Go Daddy’s inaction constitutes publisher control over content. | CDA shields passive hosting; no publisher liability for third-party content. | No publisher liability; immunity applies; dismissal affirmed. |
| Statute of limitations for NLRA retaliation claim | Retaliation occurred after 2002 up to 2012; timely filing possible. | Section 10(b) six-month limit applies; late filing bars claim. | Time-barred under §10(b); claim dismissed. |
| Statute of limitations for duty of fair representation claim | Implied duty of fair representation under NLRA can be timely if within limitations. | Six-month limit applies to this claim as well. | Time-barred; complaint dismissed. |
| Courts’ supplemental jurisdiction over state claims | State-law claims remain after federal claims and should be adjudicated. | With federal claims dismissed, Court should not exercise jurisdiction over state claims. | Declines supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (liberal pro se pleading standard)
- NLRB v. Local 282, Int’l Bd. Of Teamsters, 740 F.2d 141 (2d Cir. 1984) (duty of fair representation requires NLRA standards)
- DelCostello v. Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (U.S. 1983) (six-month statute of limitations for unfair labor practices)
- Spellacy v. Airline Pilots Ass’n–Int’l, 156 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (duty of fair representation discussed)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1967) (duty of fair representation standard)
- Green v. Am. Online (AOL), 318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2003) (CDA immunity for online platforms)
- Parker v. Google, Inc., 242 F. App’x 833 (3d Cir. 2007) (interactive computer service immunity)
- Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) (broad CDA immunity for mere hosting)