Law Students
Judge Allows Law Grad’s Suit Claiming Lost Job Due to Blog Post Claim
Posted Apr 10, 2009 10:17 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
A University of Pennsylvania law graduate who claims he was wrongly named as a defendant in a lawsuit over vile Internet posts will get a chance to prove that a federal court in Pennsylvania has jurisdiction to hear his case.
Anthony Ciolli is suing two Yale students who claimed they were defamed on a discussion board at higher education website AutoAdmit, the National Law Journal reports. Ciolli, the former chief education director at AutoAdmit, says he had no authority over the message board where the comments were posted. Yet he was a defendant in the Yale students' suit until they voluntarily dismissed him in 2007, his suit says.
A March 31 decision by a Pennsylvania federal judge rejects a motion to dismiss Ciolli’s suit and allows him to conduct discovery to determine whether his suit meets jurisdictional requirements, the NLJ story says.
Ciolli’s suit also names two lawyers who represented the women, including Stanford law professor Mark Lemley, and the law firm where he was working as counsel, Keker & Van Nest.
Ciolli claims the law firm Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge withdrew an employment offer because of the controversy. He is suing for wrongful initiation of civil proceedings, abuse of process, libel, slander, false-light invasion of privacy, tortious interference with contract and unauthorized use of name or likeness, according to the story.

Comments
Michael Johnson
Apr 10, 2009 12:03 PM CST
Good for him. Plaintiffs must understand the repercussions of naming someone as a defendant where there is minimal, if any, evidence that would support their claims. A shotgun complaint is a violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Unfortunately, too many appellate courts have simply required their respective trial courts to wade through the pleadings and narrow the issues/claims. This is a tremendous waste of judicial resources. Appellate courts should require their trial courts impose sanctions on plaintiffs’ counsel where claims are found to have been brought without merit, or where minimal effort has been made to distinguish claims and defendants. Simply allowing the dismissal of defendants after suing them and forcing them to expend substantial sums on their defense is wholly unacceptable.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Apr 11, 2009 5:15 PM CST
Maybe “good for him,” but how real are the damages? I understand they weren’t trying to do him any favors, but if the worst was that they kept him from buying a ticket for the March Mayhem, didn’t he actually come out ahead?
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.