Ajemian, et al. v. Yahoo!, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-165-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-12237 MARIANNE AJEMIAN, coadministrator,[1] & another[2] vs. YAHOO!, INC. Norfolk. March 9, 2017. – October 16, 2017. Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ.[3] Internet. Personal Property, Ownership. Executor and Administrator, Recovery of assets, Contracts. Contract, Service contract. Agency, What constitutes. Statute, Construction. Consent. Federal Preemption. Complaint filed in the Norfolk Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on September 15, 2009. Following review by the Appeals Court, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 565 (2013), the case was heard by John D. Casey, J., on motions for summary judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Robert L. Kirby, Jr. (Thomas E. Kenney also present) for the plaintiffs. Marc J. Zwillinger (Jeffrey G. Landis also present) for the defendant. Mason Kortz, for Naomi Cahn & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. James R. McCullagh & Ryan T. Mrazik, of Washington, & Joseph Aronson, for NetChoice & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief. LENK, J. This case concerns access sought by the personal representatives of an estate to a decedent’s electronic mail (e-mail) account. Such an account is a form of property often referred to as a “digital asset.” On August 10, 2006, forty-three year old John Ajemian died in a bicycle accident; he had no will. He left behind a Yahoo!, Inc. (Yahoo), e-mail account that he and his brother, Robert Ajemian,[4] had opened four years earlier; he left no instructions regarding treatment of the account. Robert and Marianne Ajemian, John’s siblings, subsequently were appointed as personal representatives of their brother’s estate. In that capacity, they sought access to the contents of the e-mail account. While providing certain descriptive information, Yahoo declined to provide access to the account, claiming that it was prohibited from doing so by certain requirements of the Stored Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq. Yahoo also maintained that the terms of service governing the e-mail account provided it with discretion to reject the personal representatives’ request. The siblings commenced an action in the Probate and Family Court challenging Yahoo’s refusal, and a judge of that court allowed Yahoo’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the requested disclosure was prohibited by the SCA. This appeal followed. We are […]
Ajemian, et al. v. Yahoo!, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-057-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 12‑P‑178 Appeals Court MARIANNE AJEMIAN, coadministrator,[1] & another[2] vs. YAHOO!, INC. No. 12‑P‑178. Norfolk. October 1, 2012. ‑ May 7, 2013. Present: Wolohojian, Brown, & Carhart, JJ. Internet. Res Judicata. Judgment, Preclusive effect. Contract, Choice of forum clause, Third party beneficiary. Jurisdiction, Forum non conveniens, Probate Court, In rem. Practice, Civil, Choice of forum. Limitations, Statute of. Probate Court, Jurisdiction. Complaint filed in the Norfolk Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on September 15, 2009. A motion to dismiss was heard by John D. Casey, J. Robert L. Kirby, Jr., for the plaintiffs. Marc J. Zwillinger, of the District of Columbia (Hanson S. Reynolds with him) for the defendant. WOLOHOJIAN, J. The plaintiffs, who are coadministrators of their brother John’s estate, brought the underlying declaratory judgment action in the Probate and Family Court, seeking a declaration that electronic mail messages (e-mails) John sent and received using a Yahoo!, Inc. (Yahoo!), e-mail account are property of his estate.[3] A probate judge dismissed the complaint, concluding that a forum selection clause required that suit be brought in California. The judge also concluded that res judicata barred the administrators from bringing their claim in a Massachusetts court, but did not bar them from asserting the same claim in California. In light of those conclusions, the judge dismissed the suit (apparently without prejudice), stating that the parties’ substantive arguments should be considered by the California courts. We reverse. Background. The parties briefed and argued the motion to dismiss as though it were a motion for summary judgment, submitting multiple documents and affidavits in support of their respective positions and liberally referring to information outside the four corners of the complaint. The judge considered and relied upon those extrinsic materials when ruling on the motion. In these circumstances, although never expressly converted, Yahoo’s motion to dismiss was in effect a motion for summary judgment, and we accordingly review the judge’s dismissal order under our familiar summary judgment standard. See Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b), 365 Mass. 754 (1974); Cousineau v. Laramee, 388 Mass. 859, 860 n.2 (1983); Casavant v. Norwegian Cruise Line, Ltd., 63 Mass. App. Ct. 785, 791 (2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1173 (2006); Rawan v. Massad, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 826, 828 (2011). Viewed through that lens, we recite […]