Legal Simplified - Lawyers Verified

Worldwide Representation of All Things Internet

At the beginning, Charles accepted pro bono cases through Lawyers for the Creative Arts and other organizations. Some of his first clients became successful and remain his clients today. 

With Charles having been immersed in Internet and technology law for years, the firm soon acquired clients with issues in Internet law focusing on copyright, defamation, and privacy litigation. The firm has participated in developing several key areas of Internet law including anonymity, personal jurisdiction, and defamation.

From 2001 to present, Mudd Law has grown to four attorneys representing clients throughout the world. The firm has litigated in state and federal courts throughout the United States. Charles has appeared before state and federal appellate courts, including filing a writ with the United States Supreme Court.

Contact Mudd Law today if you need legal assistance with any of the following:

Internet -- Cyberspace

  • Commerce
  • Defamation
  • Domains
  • P2P & Bittorrent
  • Privacy
  • Social Media
  • Internet Startups
  • Litigation

Call Mudd Law today at 773-588-5410 to arrange your free initial consultation.

Attorney Profile

Attorney Charles Mudd

Jurisdictions:

  •  Indiana, Illinois, Connecticut, Utah 
  • United States Supreme Court 
  • United States Courts of Appeals
  • Sixth Circuit United States Courts of Appeals
  • Seventh Circuit United States Courts of Appeals
  • United States District Court for the District of Colorado
  • United States District Court Northern District of Florida
  • United States District Court Northern District of Indian
  • United States District Court Central District of Illinois
  • United States District Court Northern District of Illinois (Trial Bar)
  • United States District Court District of Utah

Education:

  • Quinnipiac College School of Law, 1997
    • Honors: cum laude

Professional Memberships and Achievements:

  • Chair of the American Bar Association's Privacy and Computer Crime Committee
  • Vice-Chair of the Connecticut Bar Association's Computer Law Section
  • Co-Chair of the Regional Bar Association's Internet Law Committee
  • Member of the American Bar Association
  • Chicago Bar Association
  • Computer Law Association
  • Connecticut Bar Association
  • Indiana State Bar Associations
  • Illinois Bar Association
  • Vice-Chair of the Illinois State Bar Association's Intellectual Property Section Council
  • Active in the Indiana State Bar Association's Committee on Law Practice Management
  • Internet & Electronic Commerce Committee
  • Member of the Board of Directors of the Northcenter Chamber of Commerce
  • Member of the Kedzie-Elston Business and Industrial Council

Verdicts & Settlements


ANONYMITY

Circle Group Holdings v. Yahoo!, Inc. (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois)

Charles Mudd represented two anonymous individuals who posted communications online regarding Circle Group Holdings. Circle Group Holdings sought personally identifying information regarding these two anonymous individuals, among others, from Yahoo!, Inc. On behalf of these anonymous individuals, Charles Mudd filed a motion to intervene and intervene using fictitious names as well as a motion to vacate an order permitting discovery against Yahoo!, Inc. by Circle Group Holdings. During the pendency of these motions, Charles Mudd has successfully settled on behalf of one of the anonymous individuals to the benefit of the parties.

Cullen, et al. v. Ybarrolaza, et al. (Tennessee)

Charles Mudd represented Phillip Ybarrolaza in an action filed against Ybarrolaza and several Doe Defendants for alleged defamatory statements published by the Doe Defendants at Ybarrolaza's website, www.teamster.net, regarding the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs sought information regarding the Doe Defendants from Ybarrolaza and sought to hold him liable for the statements. On behalf of Ybarrolaza, Charles Mudd filed a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds and immunity under § 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The Court granted Ybarrolaza's motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds.

E. Van Cullens v. John Doe, 2003 L 000111 (18th Judicial Circuit, DuPage County, Illinois)

Charles Mudd represented the Defendant, John Doe. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant made defamatory communications regarding Westell Technologies, Inc. that harmed the Plaintiff, Westell's CEO. On behalf of the Defendant, Charles Mudd filed a motion to dismiss all claims. The Court granted Defendant's motion and the case was dismissed.

Mobilisa, Inc. v. Does (Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County) (pro hac vice admission)

Charles Mudd represents third-party The Suggestion Box, Inc. (www.theAnonymousEmail.com) in this action. Mobilisa, Inc. has filed an action against several John Does for alleged intrusion upon Mobilisa's computers. One of these defendants has been alleged to have obtained a private email written by an officer of Mobilisa, Inc. and forwarded the email to numerous third parties. This individual allegedly used an anonymous email address obtained from TheAnonymousEmail.com.

Mobilisa, Inc. has sought the individual's personally identifying information from TheAnonymousEmail.com through a motion for leave to conduct limited discovery. On behalf of TheAnonymousEmail.com, Charles Mudd has filed an opposition to this motion. Oral arguments were heard in Phoenix, Arizona on December 2, 2005. While the Court initially adopted the Cahill standard, the Court permitted discovery.

Soon after the trial court ordered TheAnonymousEmail.com to disclose John Doe's information, our firm filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals of Arizona seeking reversal of the trial court's order. Oral arguments were heard September 4, 2007. The Court of Appeals of Arizona issued a substantive ruling on the matter of seeking the identities of anonymous speakers online.


COMMERCIAL

Advanced Field Services, Inc. v. Millennium Information Services, Inc., 05 C 2881 (N.D. Illinois)

We represented Plaintiff Advanced Field Services, Inc. in litigating claims against Millennium Information Services, Inc. and James Paprocki for trade secret misappropriation, tortious interference with business relations, breach of contract (non-compete agreement and non-disclosure agreement), defamation and related claims. We filed a motion for preliminary injunction on its behalf.


CONTRACTS

Phillips v. Atlas Galleries, Inc., 07 CV 003385 (Circuit Court of Cook County)

Our firm represents international artist Frederick Phillips in litigation filed against Atlas Galleries, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois. The Complaint includes claims for declaratory judgment seeking to declare the contract between the parties unconscionable; fraudulent inducement; breach of contract; and violation of the Illinois Consignment of Art Act.


DEFAMATION

Circle Group Holdings v. Yahoo!, Inc. (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois)

Charles Mudd represented two anonymous individuals who posted communications online regarding Circle Group Holdings. Circle Group Holdings sought personally identifying information regarding these two anonymous individuals, among others, from Yahoo!, Inc. On behalf of these anonymous individuals, Charles Mudd filed a motion to intervene and intervene using fictitious names as well as a motion to vacate an order permitting discovery against Yahoo!, Inc. by Circle Group Holdings. During the pendency of these motions, Charles Mudd has successfully settled on behalf of one of the anonymous individuals to the benefit of the parties.

Colombik v. Jooste, 06 L 1730 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois)

Our firm successfully obtained dismissal of a defamation claim brought against our client. In this action, the Plaintiff misinterpreted a Google search result containing fragmented portions of a web page. Specifically, the Plaintiff construed the fragments of text as attributing an offensive statement to our client. In fact, the web page contains an index of Internet posts that demonstrates the offensive statement as contained within a distinct post from that attributed to our client. Aside from the substantive issues, we moved to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction and because the statute of limitations had elapsed.

The Court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction and because the statute of limitations had elapsed.


IP

Allison v. Wise, et al., 07 cv 143 (District of Colorado)
Allison v. Wise, et al., Case 1:07-cv-00143-REB-PAC (Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division)

Charles Lee Mudd Jr. represented Jeremy Wise in litigation brought against Mr. Wise and others for alleged copyright infringement of cheat codes.

In Colorado, Charles filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of Jeremy Wise for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court granted this motion. Allison thereafter filed suit in Ohio. Allison filed a motion seeking to exclude evidence that suggests he did not author cheat codes at issue in the litigation.

Arista Records LLC, et al. v. David Greubel, 05 CV 531 (N.D. Texas)
UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. Does 1-10, 06 CV 860 (N.D. Texas)

These RIAA lawsuits both relate to the Recording Industry's pursuit of the Greubel family for alleged file sharing. Initially, our firm represented David Greubel. After the RIAA recognized that David Greubel, the parent of four children, had no involvement in any file-sharing activity, the RIAA filed a subsequent suit against his for children for alleged copyright infringement. We now represent the Greubel children. Nearly all of the children have filed answers to the amended complaint in the 2006 action. Discovery has begun.

Best Vacuum, Inc. v. Ian Design, Inc., 04 C 2249 (N.D. Illinois)

We successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of our defendant-client who had been sued for alleged trademark infringement by Best Vacuum, Inc. of Illinois. Best Vacuum, Inc. contended that Ian Design, Inc.'s use of the domains "bestvacuumcleaner.com" and "bestchoicevacuums.com" infringed its alleged mark "best vacuum." Ian Design, Inc. opposed such allegations. On behalf of Ian Design, Inc., we also successfully defeated Best Vacuum's motion for preliminary injunction. In response to the Plaintiff filing its motion for summary judgment, we filed a cross motion for summary judgment. The trial court held that "best vacuum" was not a protectable mark.


PRIVACY

Doe v. "Chicago"

Charles Mudd represented a woman who had been filmed without her knowledge against a foreign entertainment company and related entities. The Complaint alleged that the Defendants filmed Ms. Doe without her knowledge, incorporated Ms. Doe's image and conversation in a documentary without her knowledge. The parties settled.

Doe v. Columbia College Chicago (Circuit Court of Cook County)

Charles Mudd represented Jane Doe, a figure model, in pursuing claims against Columbia College Chicago and various students and faculty advisors of ECHO Magazine, a student run magazine publication of Columbia Chicago. A student photographer photographed Ms. Doe in a nude drawing class without her authorization. The Defendants publishe these nude photographs of Ms. Doe without her consent. The claims brought against the Defendants involved violation of Ms. Doe's privacy and her right of publicity, among others. The parties settled.

Doe v. Westby (United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois)

Charles Mudd represented Jane Doe in pursuing claims against Brian Westby and others for the unauthorized use of her photograph in Yahoo! personals online. The Complaint alleged that the Defendants used Ms. Doe's photograph in conjunction with provacative language to solicit responses to the Yahoo! personal ads. The Complaint further alleged that the Defendants then used the email addresses obtained to advertise adult websites. Ms. Doe and Brian Westby settled.

Get Started Now! Call 773-588-5410or fill out our form

* Denotes required field

eg. xxx-xxx-xxxx

Please explain your legal situation.


* Please enter the security code shown below:

Captcha Image


The Lead Counsel Rating
Copyright © 2017 LawInfo.com, Inc. All rights are reserved. Privacy Policy
No portion of this site may be reproduced in any manner in any medium without the express written consent of LawInfo.com, Inc.

Lead Counsel Rated Law Firm

Click Here to Learn More