34 replies to this topic

[Walter]

On July 13, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against PADI in it's appeal of the United States District Court for Central District of California's ruling in PADI's suit against Diverlink. It looks like this is finally over, PADI should now be paying Diverlink's legal expenses as ordered by the United States District Court for the Central District of California which were approximately $197,000 prior to the appeal. I have no idea how much they are at this point.

The suit was filed as a result of PADI's displeasure with an article published on the Diverlink website comparing the Open Water training standards of three certification agencies.

[Dennis]

Thanks for the update. I am very pleased that the courts did the right thing in this case. You never really know until they rule.

[Warthog]

I'm assuming they reflected PADI in less than stellar light?

[Walter]

Decide for yourself, it's still up on the Diverlink website.

[Warthog]

Found it...

"87 Reads" (including mine). To which, if I were a PADI exec., my answer would be something along the lines of "who cares!!"

Anyway, I'm only PADI certified, and have no experience with other agencies to compare. Thus, I can't support or deny such an opinion. However, the nice thing about it is we live in a country where someone can state their opinion and only have to worry about getting sued

-Warthog, PADI OW, AOW, Rescue, & EAN diver.

[jextract]

As a caution, the 9th Circuit is by far the most-reversed Court of Appeal.

After reading the judgement here
http://www.ca9.uscou...84?OpenDocument
it seems like the case rests on one point - that Diverlink was merely the publisher, not the writer, and therefore is immune to defamation claims under 47 USC 203 ( c )(1); as a result, PADI can not prove that they would likely prevail over Diverlink in federal court. The dissent, which may have legs, is that Diverlink failed to prove proper federal jurisdiction based on the size of damages exceeding state jurisdiction limits.

Of course I'm not a lawyer (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night).

[bluedolphin]

I am not finding the article easily on Diverlink can someone provide a link please?

Thanks,

[Walter]

Sure.

[Walter]

it seems like the case rests on one point

Actually, no. That was merely the only point on which the District Court ruled. My understanding (and I'm not a lawyer) is to win PADI had to prove several points. This is from memory of an excplanation I heard just over two years ago, so take it for what it's worth. Those points are:

1. The article is false.

This is very difficult to prove since the article is true.

2. The author and/or publisher knew it to be false.

Since the article is true and the author, publisher and even the plaintiff knew it to be true, I don't see how it is possible to prove this point.

3. The article was written with an intention of doing harm to PADI.

Also not true, although since the lawsuit was filed considerable mutual bad blood has come to exist between PADI and both the publisher and author that did not exist at the time the article was written.

4. PADI suffered financial harm.

PADI keeps getting bigger and bigger, no harm that anyone can see.

5. The harm suffered was a direct result of the article.

If anything, in this instant gratification society, it likely increased PADI's business.

The court never looked at any of those issues because it ruled they were moot since Diverlink merely published the article and did not write it. PADI could have possibly gotten a court ruling on the merits of the article had they filed suit against the author. I say possibly because PADI did not file the original suit in a timely manner. There's a good chance that suit would have also been dismissed without going to the merits of the article. I was actually looking forward to the court issuing a ruling on the points listed above.

It appears a large corporation unsuccessfully tried to bully a small organization (in reality,one man) into withdrawing an article they didn't like because they didn't believe the small organization had the financial ability to defend the case. Luckily, a very dedicated lawyer took the case with no guarantee of payment. She has earned a great deal of respect both as a talented lawyer and as a decent human being.

[jextract]

Thanks for the clarification. Can you provide the original comparison document link? I wasn't able to find it on diverlink.com.

[Walter]

Look up a couple of posts.

[cmt489]

Walter, - from the sounds of it I suspect that PADI was alleging libel? This is, indeed very difficult to prove. While PADI would not have to have proven damages as a result of the alleged tort for Diverlink to have been found guilty of the tort, damages would be necessary for compensation (unless there were punitive damages awarded). In any event, a party cannot be found guilty of libel for statements based on fact or opinion (if clearly stated).

If PADI did not prove these elements I highly doubt that the decision will be overturned (but, then again, it is court and I have been wrong before! )

[RICHinNC]

Egads.....is this still going on???? At this point who really cares??? DL made comments that upset PADI.......with all thats going on in the world...this dont amount to a pimple on somethings butt. Got better things to do....and complain about....have brothers and sisters dieing in the desert for a reason no one can remember why.....at least not a really good reason. Never mind...........just pisses me off.
rich

[Walter]

Actually, no. It's been over since last Wednesday. I just didn't hear about it until today.

Rich, you're right, the issue of people dying is much more important. You could post that statement in any thread and you'd be right.

[blacktar]

Maybe this is why PADI is pushing their con-ed programs!