Skip to main content
Karl Stephen Kronenberger
Avvo
Pro

Karl Kronenberger’s Legal Cases

8 total

  • St. Matthew's Univeristy School of Medicine v. Saba University School of Medicine, et. al.

    Practice Area:
    Internet
    Outcome:
    Settled
    Description:
    We filed for the plaintiff, under seal, a complaint and motion for pre-service discovery in this anonymous Internet defamation case. Thereafter, we used a variety of forensic tools and the Court's subpoena-power to reveal the identities of the anonymous defendants, after which we amended the complaint to name the defendants. The case settled shortly thereafter.
  • Estate of Anthony Quinn v. Zournas

    Practice Area:
    Internet
    Outcome:
    Domain Name Transferred
    Description:
    I represented the Estate of Anthony Quinn in an ICANN UDRP arbitration over the domain name ANTHONYQUINN.COM. The arbitration resulted in a transfer of the domain name to the estate of my academy award-winning client.
  • U.S. Chess Federation v. Susan Polgar, et al., CGC-08-476777 (3:08-CV-05126-MHP after removal to federal court).

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Outcome:
    The civil case eventually settled.
    Description:
    The U.S. Chess Federation hired my firm to investigate the hacking of a board member's email and other anonymous misconduct. My firm filed a John Doe complaint, conducted extensive discovery that identified the perpetrators, and then amended the complaint to name the perpetrators as defendants. Thereafter, the U.S. Secret Service Electronic Crimes Task Force investigated the matter, resulting in one of the civil defendants being indicted and eventually pleading guilty to the federal crime of unauthorized access (hacking).
  • Second Image, Inc. v. Ronsin Photocopy, Inc., et al., C-07-05242-PJH.

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Outcome:
    The civil case eventually settled.
    Description:
    My firm filed suit on behalf of plaintiff Second Image, Inc. when a competitor breached Second Image’s security and access restricted and private data, including highly confidential medical records containing social security numbers and private medical data of patients. Thereafter, criminal investigative authorities investigated the claims of the complaint, resulting in the indictment of an executive of Ronsin Photocopy.
  • Office Depot and Assigniee DS Holdings v. Zuccarini,621 F.Supp.2d 773 (N.D. Cal. 2007), affirmed, 596 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2010).

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Outcome:
    The domains names were auctioned and the proceeds distributed to the judgment creditor.
    Description:
    In this landmark case, my firm represented a judgment creditor against the infamous cybersquatter, John Zuccarini. My firm identified a large portfolio of domains held by Zuccarini and seized them in federal court in San Francisco. The order appointing a receiver to auction the domain names was appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the trial court's order in a landmark decision, clarifying how domain names may be seized in the location of the registrar or registry, and thereafter auctioned off in satisfaction of a debt just like other personal property.
  • Hypertouch, Inc. v. Azoogle.com, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-15943 (9th Cir.)

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Jul 09, 2010
    Outcome:
    Case dismissed, affirmed on appeal.
    Description:
    On July 9, 2010 the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a spam lawsuit, which had been filed against Azoogle.com Inc. and several other defendants. My firm represented Azoogle.com before both the district court and the Ninth Circuit, and had filed the motion to dismiss. The original complaint had alleged that Azoogle.com and the other defendants had sent or advertised in hundreds of thousands of spam emails that violated the California spam statute, Business & Professions Code section 17529.5. The district court had granted Azoogle.com’s motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff had alleged fraudulent conduct, but had failed to plead such conduct with the specificity required by Federal Rule 9(b). The district court also found that under California Code of Civil Procedure 340(a), a one year statute of limitations applied to claims brought under section 17529.5 where they seek statutory damages, because such damages serve as a penalty. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, finding that the plaintiff’s claims sounded in fraud but were not pled with the required particularity. The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the district court’s ruling regarding the statute of limitations, finding that the plaintiff’s claim for statutory damages under section 17529.5 was subject to a one year statute of limitations.
  • ASIS Internet Services v. Azoogle.com, Inc., Case No. 08-15979 (9th Circuit)

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Dec 09, 2009
    Outcome:
    Decision for defendant, affirmed on appeal.
    Description:
    On December 2, 2009, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the granting of summary judgment to Azoogleads.com, Inc. in a spam lawsuit. My firm represented Azoogleads.com before both the district court and the Ninth Circuit. The original lawsuit had alleged that Azoogleads.com had procured the sending of several thousand unlawful commercial emails in violation of CAN-SPAM, 15 U.S.C. §7701 et seq. and California Business & Professions Code section 17529.5. The district court had rejected the plaintiff’s claims on multiple grounds, finding that the plaintiff had not suffered the necessary adverse effects to maintain a CAN-SPAM action and that the plaintiff had offered no evidence that Azoogleads.com had known about let alone procured the emails at issue in the lawsuit. In a unanimous decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order, finding that “the mere cost of carrying SPAM emails over Plaintiff’s facilities does not constitute a harm as required by the statute.” The Ninth Circuit also found that the plaintiff and appellant, ASIS Internet Services, had produced no evidence that AzoogleAds.com had known about or procured the emails at issue. This decision marks another important spam-related decision in an action defended by my firm.
  • Nationwide Relocation Services, Inc. v. Walker, Consumers First Corp, et al., CIV-07-60983, District Court for S.D of Florida.

    Practice Area:
    Intellectual Property
    Date:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Outcome:
    Settled.
    Description:
    My firm represented the industry leading broker of contracts between consumers and moving companies in litigation filed against the purveyors of MovingScam.com. The complaint alleged claims of false advertising, trademark infringement and defamation in a "search engine spam" scheme perptrated by the defendants, who operated a blacklist at MovingScam.com.