Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Opperman v. Path, 23-Cv-0219 (W.D. Texas. Aug 23, 2012)

    Uploaded by

    Venkat Balasubramani
    689 views5 pages
    Judge Sparks (who nuked Lance Armstrong's lawsuit against the USADA) dismisses the putative class action against Path & a slew of other companies for allegedly improper access to user's address books/contact information: This casean aspiring class action against a veritable who's-who of social media companies was filed on March 12, 2012. Plaintiffs complain Defendants are improperly using smartphone apps to copy, upload, and store Plaintiffs' address book information, from their smartphones, without the consent of Plaintiffs. A simple enough allegation, but the Original Complaint: (1) is 152 pages long,' (2) begins with a trite quote in twenty-four point, bolded italic font, (3) cites to a confused mass of Texas, Federal, and California law, and (4) is laced with exhibits of dubious value, irrelevant and inappropriate editorializing, needless repetition, paragraphs which are "intentionally" left blank, and a general aftitude of smug pomposity. None of these have any place in a federal court; in short, the Original Complaint is wholly deficient. Ouch.

    Original Title

    Opperman v. Path, 23-Cv-0219 (W.D. Texas.; Aug 23, 2012)

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Judge Sparks (who nuked Lance Armstrong's lawsuit against the USADA) dismisses the putative class action against Path & a slew of other companies for allegedly improper access to user's address books/contact information: This casean aspiring class action against a veritable who's-who of social media companies was filed on March 12, 2012. Plaintiffs complain Defendants are improperly using smartphone apps to copy, upload, and store Plaintiffs' address book information, from their smartphones, without the consent of Plaintiffs. A simple enough allegation, but the Original Complaint: (1) is 152 pages long,' (2) begins with a trite quote in twenty-four point, bolded italic font, (3) cites to a confused mass of Texas, Federal, and California law, and (4) is laced with exhibits of dubious value, irrelevant and inappropriate editorializing, needless repetition, paragraphs which are "intentionally" left blank, and a general aftitude of smug pomposity. None of these have any place in a federal court; in short, the Original Complaint is wholly deficient. Ouch.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    689 views5 pages

    Opperman v. Path, 23-Cv-0219 (W.D. Texas. Aug 23, 2012)

    Uploaded by

    Venkat Balasubramani
    Judge Sparks (who nuked Lance Armstrong's lawsuit against the USADA) dismisses the putative class action against Path & a slew of other companies for allegedly improper access to user's address books/contact information: This casean aspiring class action against a veritable who's-who of social media companies was filed on March 12, 2012. Plaintiffs complain Defendants are improperly using smartphone apps to copy, upload, and store Plaintiffs' address book information, from their smartphones, without the consent of Plaintiffs. A simple enough allegation, but the Original Complaint: (1) is 152 pages long,' (2) begins with a trite quote in twenty-four point, bolded italic font, (3) cites to a confused mass of Texas, Federal, and California law, and (4) is laced with exhibits of dubious value, irrelevant and inappropriate editorializing, needless repetition, paragraphs which are "intentionally" left blank, and a general aftitude of smug pomposity. None of these have any place in a federal court; in short, the Original Complaint is wholly deficient. Ouch.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 5

    Case 1:12-cv-00219-SS Document 99 Filed 08/23/12 Page 1 of 5

    Case 1:12-cv-00219-SS Document 99 Filed 08/23/12 Page 2 of 5


























    Case 1:12-cv-00219-SS Document 99 Filed 08/23/12 Page 3 of 5






















    Case 1:12-cv-00219-SS Document 99 Filed 08/23/12 Page 4 of 5















    Case 1:12-cv-00219-SS Document 99 Filed 08/23/12 Page 5 of 5

    You might also like