No. 13-5946 Jones v. Dirty World Entm’t Recordings, et al. Page 7 section like every other normal person to get stuff removed. You dug your own grave here Sarah. I am a very reasonable person… hope it was worth it.- nik. He also removed the first three posts regarding Jones. The posts on www.TheDirty.com humiliated Jones, allegedly undermining her position as an educator, her membership in the Cincinnati BenGals, and her personal life. Jones amended her action to proceed against Dirty World Entertainment Recordings, LLC, dba www.thedirt.com; Hooman Karamian, aka Nik Richie, aka Corbin Grimes; Dirty World, LLC, dba www.TheDirty.com; and Dirty World Entertainment, LLC, dba www.TheDirty.com, alleging claims of defamation, libel per se, false light, and intentional inflection of emotional distress. Dirty World moved to dismiss, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Dirty World and that Jones failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Richie (formerly known as Hooman Karamian) also moved to dismiss, arguing insufficiency of service of process, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The district court denied both motions. See Jones v. Dirty World Entm’t Recordings, LLC (Jones II), No. 2009-219, 2011 WL 1457343, at *1−2 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 15, 2011); Jones v. Dirty World Entm’t Recordings, LLC (Jones I), 766 F. Supp. 2d 828, 828−36 (E.D. Ky. 2011). In their motions to dismiss, both Dirty World and Richie argued that under the CDA, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c), they are immune from suit. The district court treated the CDA argument as a motion for summary judgment and granted Jones’s oral motion for a period of discovery to respond. Jones II, 2011 WL 1457343, at *2; Jones I, 766 F. Supp. 2d at 836. Dirty World and Richie then moved for summary judgment, arguing that § 230(c)(1) affords them immunity from liability for content created by third parties and that the content they created, as opposed to that created by third parties, constitutes non-actionable expressions of opinion that are non-defamatory as a matter of law. The district court denied the motion, holding that Dirty World and Richie are not entitled to immunity under the CDA. Jones v. Dirty World Entm’t Recordings, LLC (Jones III), 840 F. Supp. 2d 1008, 1010−13 (E.D. Ky. 2012). The case was tried and submitted to a jury, but upon a joint motion by both parties, the court declared a mistrial.