boring%20v.%20Google.%20%20case

boring%20v.%20Google.%20%20case - Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT AARON C. BORING; CHRISTINE BORING, Plaintiffs, vs. GOOGLE, INC., De- fendant. Civil Action No. 08-694 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 598 F. Supp. 2d 695 ; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11682 February 17, 2009, Decided February 17, 2009, Filed SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Reconsideration denied by Boring v. Google Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28934 (W.D. Pa., Apr. 6, 2009) Affirmed in part and reversed in part by, Remanded by Boring v. Google Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1891 (3d Cir. Pa., Jan. 28, 2010) CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff property owners filed a suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (Pennsylvania) against defendant, an internet search engine provider, alleging invasion of privacy, trespass, neg- ligence, and unjust enrichment claims arising from the fact that photos of their property were made available to users of the provider's mapping service. The provider filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal motion after removing the suit. OVERVIEW: The provider allowed internet users to view street level, digitally photographed images of roads, homes, and structures. The owners alleged that their privacy rights were violated because photos of their home and property were taken from their private driveway without their authorization and were made available for online viewing by the provider. A magistrate found that the owners failed to assert legally actionable claims against the provider. The owners failed to allege facts showing that the intrusion on their privacy was substantial, highly offensive, or transgressed stand- ards of decency, nor did they show that the published information was of no public concern. That the owners failed to take readily available steps to protect their own privacy and to mitigate their purported pain suggested that the intrusion and suffering were less severe than the owners contended. The owners did not allege the existence of any duty that the provider breached. Their unjust enrichment claim failed because the parties did not have a contractual relationship. Giv- en the legal insufficiency of their substantive legal claims, the owners could not show their entitlement to a mandatory injunction. OUTCOME: The magistrate granted the provider's dismissal motion and stated that any attempt to allow the owners to amend their complaint would be futile. CORE TERMS: street, trespass, unjust enrichment, intrusion, facts sufficient, publicity, map, privacy, causes of action, negligence claims, injunctive relief, restitution, private facts, tort claim, photographs', offensive, conferred, punitive damages, private life, reasonable person, mental suffering, entitlement, seclusion, proximate, quantum, meruit, internet, Black's Law Dictionary, invasion of privacy, failed to state COUNSEL: [**1] For AARON C. BORING, CHRISTINE BORING, husband and wife respectively, Plaintiffs: Den- nis M. Moskal, LEAD ATTORNEY, Technology & Entrepreneurial Ventures Law Group, Pittsburgh, PA.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
For GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant: Brian P. Fagan, LEAD ATTORNEY, Keevican Weiss Bauerle
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/30/2011 for the course JRLC 5040 taught by Professor Lee during the Spring '08 term at University of Georgia Athens.

Page1 / 6

boring%20v.%20Google.%20%20case - Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online