1

2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
2:08-CV-943 JCM (PAL)
8 JANET RAGGI,

9 Plaintiff,
Date: N/A
10 Time: N/A
v.
11
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN
12 POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
13 Defendants.
14
15 ORDER
16 Presently before the court is defendant Las Vegas Police Protective Association’s (“LVPPA”)
17 motion for summary judgment, which was filed on December 22, 2008. (Doc. #36.) In her
18 complaint, plaintiff alleges defamation, public disclosure of private facts, false light, and intentional
19 infliction of emotional distress against LVPPA based on offensive comments that were posted on
20 an online bulletin board or “forum” maintained by this organization. LVPPA claims summary
21 judgment is appropriate on all of these claims because the offensive content was not posted by its
22 officers, agents, or employees and because it is immune from suit under 47 U.S.C. § 230.
23 Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion. While the failure of an opposing party to
24 file points and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the
25 motion under LR 7-2(d), plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition is an insufficient ground for summary
26 judgment. See Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178, 1182 (9th Cir. 2002). The court may grant the
27 motion and enter judgment only if the motion also has merit. Id. Here, the motion is supported by
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
 1 sufficient facts to warrant summary judgment.
2 Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege that LVPPA or its officers, employees, or agents created
3 or developed the offensive content in this case. In fact, she explicitly states that all posters on the
4 forum were employees of LVMPD, a separate entity from LVPPA. Nor does she allege that LVPPA
5 exerted any control over its members or that they acted on behalf of LVPPA when they posted the
6 offensive content. Likewise, her claim that LVPPA ratified the actions of its members by refusing
7 to remove the postings fails. “Although a principal is liable when it ratifies an originally
8 unauthorized tort, the principal-agent relationship is still a requisite, and ratification can have no
9 meaning without it.” Batzel v. Smith, 333 F.3d 1018, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, no such
10 relationship existed between the posters and LVPPA. The identities of the two people who posted
11 the offensive content were divulged to plaintiff during discovery. Neither person has ever been
12 employed by LVPPA. (Doc. #36, Ex. A., David Kallas Aff.)
13 Further, LVPPA is entitled to immunity from suit under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). LVPPA acts
14 as an interactive computer service, rather than an information content provider, while it maintains
15 the forum. The distinction lies in the fact that LVPPA provides access by multiple users to the
16 computer server that hosts the forum, but it does not create or develop the information posted there.
17 LVPPA and its agents play no role in the creation of forum content; therefore LVPPA cannot be held
18 liable as a speaker or publisher of such information. See Batzel v. Smith, 333 f.3d 1018, 1030 (9th
19 Cir. 2003); Carafano v, Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2003).
20 Accordingly,
21 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that defendant LVPPA’s motion
22 for summary judgment on plaintiff’s first, second, third, and fourth claims for relief (Doc. # 36) be,
23 ...
24 ...
25 ...
26 ...
27 ...
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge -2-
 1 and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Plaintiff’s first, second, third, and fourth causes of action shall
2 be dismissed as against defendant LVPPA.
3 DATED this 6th day of February, 2009.
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge -3-