Delfino

Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.

Good Law
145 Cal. App. 4th 790·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1937·2006 Daily Journal DAR 16191·52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 376·30 A.L.R. 6th 639
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 14, 2006H028993California11,921 words

Opinion

Opinion

Duffy, J.

A series of anonymous messages was sent over the Internet that constituted threats to Michelangelo Delfino and Mary E. Day (collectively, plaintiffs). The messages consisted of electronic mail messages (e-mails) sent to Delfino and messages that were posted on Internet bulletin boards. These e-mails and postings were ultimately traced to Cameron Moore. Plaintiffs brought suit against Moore and his former employer, Agilent Technologies, Inc. (Agilent). Agilent moved for summary judgment on various grounds, and the trial court granted the motion on the basis that Agilent was immune from suit under the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA). Specifically, the court held that under title 47 of the United States Code section 230(c)(1), Agilent was a “provider ... of an interactive computer service” entitled to immunity under the CDA.

Plaintiffs contend on appeal that summary judgment should not have been granted because Agilent was not immune from suit under the CDA. They argue that they made a prima facie showing of negligence. We conclude after a de novo review that Agilent was an interactive computer service provider; as such, it was immune from liability for alleged…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.