Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

Internet Law
December 29, 2023

Table of Contents

Paglia & Associates Construction v. Hamilton

Communications Law, Construction Law, Internet Law, Real Estate & Property Law

California Courts of Appeal


Communications Law, Criminal Law, Internet Law

Supreme Court of Nevada

Browse upcoming and on-demand Justia Webinars

Internet Law Opinions

Paglia & Associates Construction v. Hamilton

Court: California Courts of Appeal

Docket: B313864(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 27, 2023

Areas of Law: Communications Law, Construction Law, Internet Law, Real Estate & Property Law

In the case before the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Eight, the plaintiff, a construction company, sued the defendant, a homeowner, for defamation after the homeowner posted critical comments about the company online. The homeowner had hired the construction company to repair her home after it was damaged by a fallen tree. Dissatisfied with the work, the homeowner reported the company to the Contractors State License Board and began posting negative reviews of the company on her blog and Yelp. In response to the defamation lawsuit, the homeowner filed a special motion to strike, arguing that her comments were protected by the litigation privilege. The trial court denied the motion, and the homeowner appealed.

The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the homeowner's online posts were not covered by the litigation privilege. The court explained that the litigation privilege applies only to communications made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings that have some connection to the litigation. The homeowner's posts were public criticisms of the construction company, some of which did not even mention the Contractors State License Board. Therefore, the court found that the posts were akin to press releases and lacked the necessary connection to the proceedings before the board. The court also rejected the homeowner's arguments that the construction company failed to plead that her statements were unprivileged, that her statements were true, and that her statements were merely her opinions.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.


Court: Supreme Court of Nevada

Citation: 139 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 60

Opinion Date: December 28, 2023

Areas of Law: Communications Law, Criminal Law, Internet Law

The Supreme Court of Nevada upheld a judgment from a lower court in a case involving extortion claims related to cryptocurrency. The case involves Christopher Terry, who sued Ava Blige, alleging she extorted cryptocurrency and money from him under threat of publishing his personal information. Blige failed to respond to court-ordered discovery requests, leading the district court to enter a default judgment in favor of Terry. The court found that Terry had established a prima facie case for conversion, unjust enrichment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, awarding him damages accordingly. The court also found that the factual allegations supported a claim for extortion, even though it was not specifically pleaded in the complaint. On appeal, Blige argued that the district court erroneously determined that she had impliedly consented to being sued under the unpleaded legal theory of extortion. The Supreme Court of Nevada agreed with Blige on this issue, stating that a defaulting party cannot be found to have impliedly consented to try claims that were not pleaded in the complaint. However, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Blige wrongfully dispossessed Terry of the cryptocurrency and money for cars through extortive acts under the theories of conversion, unjust enrichment, and caused him emotional distress.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

About Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free newsletter service with over 65 newsletters covering every federal appellate court and the highest court in each U.S. state.

Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 60+ different practice areas. All daily and weekly Justia Newsletters are free. You may request newsletters or modify your preferences by visiting daily.justia.com.

Please note that some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on any summary for legal research purposes.

You may freely redistribute this email in whole.

About Justia

Justia’s mission is to make law and legal resources free for all.

New on Justia Onward

Want instant updates? Get Notified

Justia Legal Resources: What Was New in 2023

Chris Skelton

onward post

Read about some of the highlights from what we accomplished this year in expanding our portal of free legal resources. We compiled a legal dictionary, 50-state surveys, and biographies of U.S. Supreme Court Justices, among other projects.

Read More


Contact Us| Privacy Policy

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn LinkedIn Justia

Unsubscribe from this newsletter

Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043

Unsubscribe from all Justia Newsletters