While Bill continues to file his hurt feelings report across the country, he now has another female attorney to add to his can't stand list as he received the legal equivalent of a bitch slap in California from Facebook's legal department. As you might recall, this lawsuit is because his feelings were hurt when FB took down his site due to sexually related material. Of course this is very much within their right, but Bill's feelings were badly hurt and a frivolous lawsuit must ensue.
After not being served correctly, Facebook finally got notice of the lawsuit and they filed a Demurrer. In this, attorney Julie Schawrtz points out that even if every single thing Bill is claiming is true, which btw he didn't document any of it, it still doesn't meet the standard for making a claim. In another of words, its another frivolous lawsuit by someone whom seems incapable of filing anything but.
Ms. Schawrtz's assessment of Bill is spot on with the first sentence in the Introduction:
"Plaintiff William Windsor' s (" Plaintiff') Complaint against Defendant Facebook, Inc.
(" Facebook") is replete with inflammatory rhetoric, but it is entirely bereft of any factual
allegation of misconduct attributable to Facebook."
Indeed, and well put. In fact, you could apply that statement to all of Windsor's legal filings. He is big on claims, short on evidence, and as we will see in this response.....he can't even provide even the most basic forms of evidence in support of his crazy claims.
"Each of Plaintiffs claims fails because Plaintiff fails to identify any Facebook account or any of the alleged actionable statements, leaving the Complaint devoid of even the most rudimentary facts necessary to support his claims."
Wow Bill, you didn't even save any evidence of the facebook pages you are claiming somehow harmed you? You expect FB to provide you with all the evidence that you need in order to sue them? This ranks right up there with asking Google to give you all of your own emails.
The response goes on to list the TOS for FB which show that they were well within their rights as well as cite the CDA in that they are not responsible for 3rd party content, same as with Google. I wonder if they know that Bill doesn't consider the CDA to be Constitutional? But the real fun is when Schwartz gets to the different claims Bill tried to make:
"Negligence. To state a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must plead " the existence of duty
( the obligation to other persons to conform to a standard of care to avoid unreasonable risk of
harm to them); breach of duty (conduct below the standard of care); causation ( between the
defendant' s act or omission and the plaintiffs injuries); and damages." Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.,
Cal. 4th 465, 500 ( 2601). Plaintiff alleges no facts giving rise to liability for negligence.
Indeed, Plaintiffs contention that Facebook owed him a duty to keep Facebook safe is directly
contradicted by the Terms. ( See Schwartz Decl., Ex. A at §§ 16.2, 16. 3.); see also Young v.
Facebook, Inc., 5: 10- CV-03579- JF/PVT, 2010 WL 4269304, at * 4 ( N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2010)
The plaintiff' s] first contention is without merit because, as noted above, Facebook expressly
disclaimed any duty to protect users' online safety"). Because Facebook had no duty to Plaintiff
to prevent others from posting content that Plaintiff finds objectionable or for guaranteeing that
content posted by Plaintiff would not be removed, Plaintiffs negligence claim fails."
"Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. The elements of intentional infliction of
emotional distress are: "( 1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention
of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; ( 2) the
plaintiffs suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and ( 3) actual and proximate causation
of the emotional distress by the defendant's outrageous conduct." Christensen v. Superior Court,
54 Cal. 3d 868, 903 ( 1991) ( citations omitted). " Conduct to be outrageous must be so extreme as
to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community." Id. (citing Davidson v.
City of Westminster, 32 Cal. 3d 197, 209 ( 1982).) The defendant must have engaged in " conduct
intended to inflict injury or engaged in with the realization that injury will result."
-With this kicker of a sentence to sum up the essence of Bill Windsor:
"That Plaintiff disagrees with Facebook' s decisions does not mean that Facebook' s behavior was " false," " malicious," or outrageous."
In response to Tortious Interference:
"In addition, because Plaintiff described the Page as about a movie that is still in production with no known release date, there can be no economic damage resulting from its removal."
You don't understand, all of his cases are based on that faulty premise....if you take that one away all he has left is Barbara left me because someone said meanie things about me.
In relation to Fraud:
"Not only are Plaintiff' s general conclusory allegations insufficient
to satisfy general fact pleading standards, but they are unquestionably deficient in satisfying the
heightened pleading standards required for fraud and other fraud -based claims, such as Plaintiff' s
unfair business practices claim."
Don't you know that Bill Windsor is smarter than all of the lawyers out there? He is on a level you just can't even begin to comprehend Julie.
On Unfair Business Practice:
"Plaintiff' s allegations similarly do not plead an " unfair" practice. An act or practice is
unfair if (l) the consumer injury is substantial; ( 2) the injury is not outweighed by any
countervailing benefits to consumers or competition; and ( 3) the injury is not one that consumers
themselves could not reasonably have avoided."
-Those sound like really high marks to reach, can't we just all agree to the Windsor Rules of Court and say that if Bill said he had a business and that business was harmed.....thats good enough for court?
Ms. Schwartz sums all of this up nicely with this zinger for Bill:
"When Plaintiffs hyperbolic characterizations are removed, at most, Plaintiff alleges that
he disagreed with Facebook' s decision to remove the Page. And protection from spurious claims
of wrongful removal is exactly what the CDA was implemented to protect."
Once again, when you remove all the histrionics....all that is left is spurious allegations.