I refuse to rely on Facebook or Twitter--especially Facebook--for my news. Some of my favorite sites have been censored or even banned, especially from FB.
Yes, it's an "extra" first step when, for instance, one side objects that proper procedures are not being followed. The "pretrial hearings" you may have heard tell of often deal with such matters, so that they can be cleared away before seating a jury for the trial itself.
No determination is necessarily made concerning whether or not the case is viable on its merits, that is, the actual facts of the case.
The summary of the opinion says, "The panel held that the Communications Decency Act did not bar Jane Doe’s failure to warn claim under California law. The panel concluded that Jane Doe’s negligent failure to warn claim did not seek to hold Internet Brands liable as the “publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1), and therefore the Communications Decency Act did not bar the claim. The panel expressed no opinion on the viability of the failure to warn allegations on the merits."
The summary cites the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows an objection on the grounds that the plaintiff failed "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted". In this case, the defendant objected that federal law barred the claim made under California law, but the panel's order rejects that reasoning, and so the case can proceed.
IANAL.
Slashdot Mirror
I refuse to rely on Facebook or Twitter--especially Facebook--for my news. Some of my favorite sites have been censored or even banned, especially from FB.
Yes, it's an "extra" first step when, for instance, one side objects that proper procedures are not being followed. The "pretrial hearings" you may have heard tell of often deal with such matters, so that they can be cleared away before seating a jury for the trial itself. No determination is necessarily made concerning whether or not the case is viable on its merits, that is, the actual facts of the case. The summary of the opinion says, "The panel held that the Communications Decency Act did not bar Jane Doe’s failure to warn claim under California law. The panel concluded that Jane Doe’s negligent failure to warn claim did not seek to hold Internet Brands liable as the “publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1), and therefore the Communications Decency Act did not bar the claim. The panel expressed no opinion on the viability of the failure to warn allegations on the merits." The summary cites the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows an objection on the grounds that the plaintiff failed "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted". In this case, the defendant objected that federal law barred the claim made under California law, but the panel's order rejects that reasoning, and so the case can proceed. IANAL.