Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Alvi Armani Med., Inc. v. Hennessey

Alvi Armani Med., Inc. v. Hennessey

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

December 9, 2008, Decided; December 9, 2008, Entered

CASE NO. 08-21449-CIV-LENARD/GARBER

Opinion

 [*1303]  ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT (D.E. 20)

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants' Renewed Motion to Dismiss Complaint ("Motion," D.E. 20; see also D.E. 21 (memorandum of law)), filed on July 14, 2008. On September 16, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their Response to the Motion ("Response," D.E. 31). On September 26, 2008, Defendants filed a reply ("Reply," D.E. 35). Having reviewed the Motion, the Response, the Reply and the record, the Court finds as follows:

I. Background

On May 19, 2008, Plaintiffs Dr. Antonio Alvi Armani ("Dr. Armani") and Alvi Armani Medical, Inc. ("Armani Medical") commenced  [**2] this action with the filing of the Complaint against Defendants Patrick Hennessey ("Hennessey") and Media Visions, Inc. ("Media Visions"). (See D.E. 1.) The Complaint alleges, inter alia, that Dr. Armani is a physician specializing in "hair restorations and hair transplants," and that he founded Armani Medical. (Id. PP 9, 14.) The Complaint further alleges that, upon information and belief, Defendant Media Visions is the owner, host, and publisher of a website called the "Hair [*1304]  Restoration Network," which is identified as being "dedicated to providing information to the consumer public about the hair restoration and transplant industry," and that such website is controlled by Defendant Hennessey. (Id. P 21.) According to the Complaint, Defendants have engaged in false, deceptive and unfair business practices in knowingly posting disparaging and false statements about Dr. Armani and Armani Medical on the website and by creating the impression that posters on the website are bona fide disgruntled patients of Plaintiffs, when in fact the posters are either fictitious persons or undisclosed affiliates of doctors who are on the website's recommended list of "pre-screened" doctors. (Id. P 30.)  [**3] The Complaint also asserts that as a result of such posts, many individuals have decided not to use the services of Plaintiffs. (Id. PP 71-72.) Based on these and additional allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiffs assert claims for Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices ("FDUTPA") (Count I); Defamation (Count II); and for Temporary and Permanent Injunctive Relief (Count V). 1

II. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

629 F. Supp. 2d 1302 *; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108492 **; 37 Media L. Rep. 1420

ALVI ARMANI MEDICAL, INC. and DR. ANTONIO ALVI ARMANI, Plaintiffs, vs. PATRICK HENNESSEY and MEDIA VISIONS, INC., Defendants.

CORE TERMS

Plaintiffs', website, internet, posted, Defendants', allegations, medium, notice, commerce, injunctive relief, defamation claim, practices, immunity, unfair, defamatory statement, defamation, deceptive, posters, hair, consumer, patients, provider, cases

Civil Procedure, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Pleadings, Complaints, Requirements for Complaint, Antitrust & Trade Law, Consumer Protection, Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices, State Regulation, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Business & Corporate Compliance, Computer & Internet Law, Content Regulation, Communications Decency Act, Communications Law, Federal Acts, Telecommunications Act, Prelitigation Notices, Torts, Intentional Torts, Defamation, Procedural Matters, Computer & Internet Law, Civil Actions, Defamation, Remedies, Damages, Compensatory Damages, Injunctions, General Overview