03/02/2020 AYYADURAI v. FLOOR64, INC | 270 F.Supp.3d 343... | 20170907d75| Leagle.com Home /  Browse Decisions /  F.Supp.3d /  270 F.Supp.3d /  270 F.Supp.3d 343 (2017)   AYYADURAI v. FLOOR64, INC. Civil Action No. 17-10011-FDS. View Case Email | Print | Comments (0) Cited Cases 270 F.Supp.3d 343 (2017) Shiva AYYADURAI, Plainti , v. FLOOR64, INC. d/b/a Techdirt, Michael David Masnick, Leigh Beadon, and Does 1-20, Defendants. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. Signed September 6, 2017. Editors Note Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity - Libel,Assault,Slander Nature of Suit: 320 Assault Libel & Slander Source: PACER Attorney(s) appearing for the Case Charles J. Harder , Pro Hac Vice, Douglas E. Mirell , Pro Hac Vice, Ryan J. Stonerock , Pro Hac Vice, Harder Mirell & Abrams LLP, Beverly Hills, CA, Timothy M. Cornell , Cornell Dolan, P.C., Boston, MA, for Plainti . Robert A. Bertsche , Je rey Jackson Pyle , Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE F. Dennis Saylor, IV, United States District Judge. This is a tort action arising out of allegedly defamatory statements that the plainti falsely claimed to be the inventor of e-mail. Plainti Shiva Ayyadurai is a scientist and entrepreneur. In 1979, at the age of 14, he created an electronic-mail system for use at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. On the basis of that creation, he has since claimed to have invented e-mail, and has received some positive media attention on the basis of that claim. Defendants Floor64, Inc., Michael Masnick, and Leigh Beadon operate or write for a website called "Techdirt." Defendants posted a series of 14 articles disagreeing with Ayyadurai's claim, stating, among other things, that he is "a liar," that his claim is "fake," and that he has made several misrepresentations in support of his claim. Ayyadurai then brought this action, asserting claims for libel, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and intentional in iction of emotional distress. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship. Defendants have moved to strike the complaint pursuant to the California anti-SLAPP [270 F.Supp.3d 350] statute and to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, for improper service of process, and, with respect to one of the 14 articles, on the ground that the claim is barred by the Communications Decency Act ("CDA"), 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). For the reasons stated below, the motions to strike will be denied and the motions to dismiss will be granted. I.  Background A.  Factual Background 1 The Parties https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20170907d75 1/15