{"cached_at":"2026-11-12T11:46:05.243046+00:00","cl_docket_id":"7187049","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","id":7187049,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/nysd/","court_id":"nysd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/fjc-integrated-database/24534181/","date_created":"2018-11-21T09:53:04.754432-08:00","date_modified":"2022-01-28T08:12:33.679031-08:00","dataset_source":9,"office":"1","docket_number":"1805444","origin":2,"date_filed":"2018-06-16","jurisdiction":4,"nature_of_suit":320,"title":"28","section":"1446","subsection":"","diversity_of_residence":12,"class_action":null,"monetary_demand":0,"county_of_residence":88888,"arbitration_at_filing":"","arbitration_at_termination":"","multidistrict_litigation_docket_number":"","plaintiff":"MOSHA","defendant":"YANDEX INC.","date_transfer":null,"transfer_office":"","transfer_docket_number":"","transfer_origin":"","date_terminated":"2019-09-30","termination_class_action_status":null,"procedural_progress":12,"disposition":6,"nature_of_judgement":0,"amount_received":0,"judgment":2,"pro_se":0,"year_of_tape":2019,"nature_of_offense":"","version":null,"circuit":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/ca2/","district":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/nysd/"},"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10193614/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9851558/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/2655/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/7187049/mosha-v-yandex-inc/","date_created":"2018-06-16T18:34:49.383034-07:00","date_modified":"2022-02-04T15:13:44.875004-08:00","source":9,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Edgardo Ramos","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2021-11-13T01:29:04.359039-08:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2018-06-16","date_terminated":"2019-09-30","date_last_filing":"2019-10-30","case_name_short":"Mosha","case_name":"Mosha v. Yandex Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"mosha-v-yandex-inc","docket_number":"1:18-cv-05444","docket_number_core":"1805444","docket_number_raw":"1:18-cv-05444","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"","federal_dn_case_type":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"495793","cause":"28:1446lb Notice of Removal - Libel, Assault, Slander","nature_of_suit":"320 Assault Libel & Slander","jury_demand":"None","jurisdiction_type":"Diversity","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.495793/gov.uscourts.nysd.495793.docket.json","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2018-09-30T00:00:00-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1329/"],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/4804674/","id":4804674,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/3549369/","attorney_id":3549369,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","docket_id":7187049,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","docket_id":7187049,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.646404-07:00","date_modified":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.646427-07:00","name":"Yandex Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/4804673/","id":4804673,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/3549368/","attorney_id":3549368,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","docket_id":7187049,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","docket_id":7187049,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.612300-07:00","date_modified":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.612326-07:00","name":"Yury Mosha","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/107730452/","id":107730452,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/112037046/","id":112037046,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/7187049/52/mosha-v-yandex-inc/","date_created":"2019-10-30T13:56:56.333893-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.465064-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"52","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127025771452","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Judgment - Clerk","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2019-10-30T13:56:56.328072-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.453019-07:00","date_filed":"2019-10-30","time_filed":null,"entry_number":52,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-10-30.003","pacer_sequence_number":180,"description":"CLERK'S AMENDED JUDGMENT re: 50 Memorandum & Opinion in favor of Yandex Inc. against Yury Mosha. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Amended Opinion and Order dated October 30, 2019, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 10/30/2019) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal)(km) (Entered: 10/30/2019)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/107674755/","id":107674755,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/111980961/","id":111980961,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/7187049/50/mosha-v-yandex-inc/","date_created":"2019-10-30T09:59:37.734832-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.419792-07:00","sha1":"5cc8a7c6fd326bf92bc98c0c4b107d8c1d623852","page_count":18,"file_size":715899,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.495793/gov.uscourts.nysd.495793.50.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.495793/gov.uscourts.nysd.495793.50.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nYURYMOSHA,\n\n                               Plaintiff,\n                                                                      AMENDED\n                 -against-                                       OPINION AND ORDER\n                                                                    18 Civ. 5444 (ER)\nYANDEX INC.,\n\n                               Defendant.\n\n\nRamos, D.J.:\n\n       Yury Mosha (\"Plaintiff' or \"Mosha\") initially brought this action in the Supreme Court\n\nofNew York, County of New York against U.S.-based advertising company Yandex, Inc.\n\n(\"Defendant\" or \"Yandex, Inc.\") because its Russian sister corporation, Yandex, LLC (\"Yandex,\n\nLLC\") refused to remove websites from its search engine, Yandex.ru (\"Yandex.ru\"), that\n\nallegedly contained defamatory information about Mosha. Yandex, Inc. removed the case and\n\nasked the Court to dismiss the action on several grounds: comity; collateral preclusion;\n\nimmunity granted by Communications Decency Act (\"CDA\"), 47 U.S.C. \u00a7 230; sufficiency of\n\nthe pleadings; and in the altemative,/orum non conveniens and failure to join a required party.\n\nFor the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.\n\nI. BACKGROUND\n\n       Mosha is a citizen of New York and the founder and chief executive officer of Russian\n\nAmerica, Inc. (\"Russian America\"), a New York corporation. Doc. 1 ifl; Doc. 31, 4. Mosha\n\nadvertises his business heavily on the Internet and on various social media platforms. Doc. 31, 4.\n\nMost of his clientele is located in the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and other countries with\n\fRussian-speaking diasporas, as his business provides consulting services for Russian-speaking\n\nU.S. visitors. Id at 4-5.\n\n       Yandex, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in\n\nMassachusetts, which helps American companies promote their products and services. Doc. 1 ,r\n\n1; Doc. 31, 15-16. Yandex, N.V., a Russian multinational corporation specialized in Internet-\n\nrelated products and services incorporated in the Netherlands, is the parent company for Yandex,\n\nInc. and Yandex, LLC. Doc. 30, 7 n.2. Yandex, LLC is a major operator of an Internet portal\n\nheadquartered in the Russian Federation. Doc. 28      ,r 2; Doc. 33, Ex. 0   (article reporting that in\n\n2017, Yandex, LLC commanded approximately 54% of online searches in Russia). Yandex,\n\nLLC owns and runs Yandex.ru. Doc. 28     ,r 2.   Thus, entering search terms on Yandex.ru\n\ngenerates links to websites, which Yandex, LLC indexes. Indexing refers to various methods\n\nthat search engines use to make the contents of a website searchable and provide it with uniform\n\nsource locators (\"URLs\" or \"hyperlinks\"). Doc. 31, 4.\n\n       Mosha believes he is the target of Russian hackers and business competitors that want to\n\ndisparage him and destroy his business. Doc. 1, Ex. A at 9. Internet trolls and hackers have\n\nposted defamatory statements about Mosha, often anonymously or under fake names. Id at 10.\n\nWhen Mosha asked the uploaders to remove their false allegations, they blackmailed him and\n\npromised to continue posting defamatory allegations about him when he refused to pay. Id. As a\n\nresult, entering Mosha' s name in the Russian language on Yandex.ru generates defamatory links\n\nabout him. Id. Some of the messages mentioned Masha's Jewish nationality and religion and\n\nincited people to pursue Mosha and kill him and other Jewish people: \"Mosha is a cursed Jew,\n\ntherefore it is in his blood to cheat and clean out people. All Jews are scammers, including\n\nMosha. This Mosha and all his cursed Jewish tribe should be killed. Otherwise they will\n\n\n\n                                                  2\n\fplunder us all.\" Id. at 11. Additionally, the defamatory posts accused Mosha of being a\n\n\"criminal\" and a \"felon,\" which he claims is hurting his business. Doc. 31, 5.\n\n       In 2017, Mosha sued Yandex, LLC in Russia because the company refused to de-index\n\nthe allegedly defamatory websites. Doc. 33, Ex. S. Russia has a statute dubbed the \"Right to be\n\nForgotten\" law, Article 152 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (\"CPC\"),\n\nwhich allows an individual to request that search engine operators, like Google or Yandex, LLC,\n\nremove links that are incorrect or outdated. Doc. 42, Ex. 1-B. Under Article 152 of the CPC,\n\nRussian citizens have the right to file a lawsuit to refute information defaming their honor,\n\ndignity, or business reputation. Id. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 10.3 of Russian Federal\n\nLaw No. 149-FZ \"On Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection\"\n\n(\"Article 10.3 \"), a citizen may ask the operator of a search engine that distributes advertisement\n\ntargeted at customers in the Russian Federation, to stop issuing information about the indexed\n\nwebsite. Doc. 42, Ex. 2-B. However, search engine operators do not have to remove links\n\nbecause of Article 10.3 for (1) information that contains features of criminal actions that are\n\npunishable by law and for which the terms of limitation for imposing criminal liability have not\n\nexpired, or (2) information on a citizen committing a crime for which the record of conviction\n\nhas not been expunged or which has not expired. Id.\n\n       Yandex, LLC has been ordered to comply with the \"Right to be Forgotten\" law in the\n\npast, for example in August 2017, a St. Petersburg court ordered it to remove search results about\n\na businessman. Doc. 33, Ex.Rat 8. In another instance, a court ordered it to remove links with\n\ninformation that allegedly defamed the dignity and business reputation of a former minister of\n\nagriculture. Id. Mosha relied on the \"Right to be Forgotten\" statute to sue Yandex, LLC in the\n\nKhamovniki District Court of Moscow (the \"Khamovniki Court\"), where it is headquartered.\n\n\n\n                                                 3\n\fDoc. 32 ,r 22. The search terms which allegedly led to defamatory links at various Internet\n\naddresses included: \"Yury Mosha-Exposing a Fraudster,\" \"Yury Mosha the Swindler,\" \"Yury\n\nMosha the Rogue,\" \"Yury Mosha the Scammer,\" and \"Yury Mosha Deceived.\" Id. at Ex. L.\n\nMosha asserted that the information posted on these websites was inaccurate as he did not\n\ncommit fraudulent acts, steal money, or deceive his clients. Id.\n\n        On November 13, 2017, the Khamovniki Court decided the case against Mosha. Doc. 32,\n\nEx. L. Masha's complaint to the Khamovniki Court shows that he was represented by a lawyer\n\nnamed Viktor Viktorovich Kamaldinov (\"Kamaldinov\"), a member of the Moscow Bar\n\nAssociation. Doc. 33, Ex. S. However, neither Mosha nor his lawyer appeared for the court\n\nsession in front of the Khamovniki Court, despite having been notified of the time and place of\n\nthe hearing. Doc. 28, Ex. 7-B. Yandex, LLC sent representatives who asked the court to dismiss\n\nthe case, arguing that the claims were groundless. Doc. 32, Ex. L at 2. The Khamovniki Court\n\nmoved forward with the case despite Mosha' s unexplained absence, finding that it was his will to\n\nrefuse to exercise his right to a trial. Id.\n\n        The Khamovniki Court held that Yandex, LLC's refusal to de-index the websites was\n\nlawful and justified for numerous reasons: (1) Mosha presented no evidence, and the record did\n\nnot reflect, that the sites distributed the information in violation of Article 10.3; (2) the Yandex\n\nsearch system on Y andex.ru automatically indexes publicly available information on the Internet\n\nand does not distribute the information, so it is not liable for third-party content; (3) Russia's\n\nconstitution guarantees the right to freely share information; and (4) per Article 10.3, the\n\nwebsites contained information about activities with criminal features (i.e. Articles 158 (robbery)\n\nand 159 (swindling) of the Russian Federation Criminal Code) and the time limit for imposing\n\n\n\n\n                                                  4\n\fcriminal liability for those actions had not yet expired. Id. at 3-4. Accordingly, the Khamovniki\n\nCourt dismissed the claim against Yandex, LLC and granted Mosha leave to appeal. Id. at 4.\n\n        On June 4, 2018, a judicial panel for civil matters in Moscow (the \"Russian Appellate\n\nCourt\") upheld the Khamovniki Court's decision. Doc. 28, 7-B. Mosha was represented by a\n\nnew attorney, Yu. V. Bokhin, who sought to reverse the Khamovniki Court decision because\n\nMosha had not defrauded his clients and on procedural grounds because he was not physically\n\npresent at the hearing and was allegedly not notified of the hearing in a timely manner. Id. at 1.\n\nThe Russian Appellate Court took into consideration that during the Khamovniki Court action,\n\nMosha was represented by counsel who was duly notified of the date and time of the court\n\nhearing. Id. at 3. Article 167 of the CPC requires that parties notify the court of reasons for\n\nfailure to appear and provide proof that such reasons were valid. Id. at 4. However, neither\n\nMosha nor Kamaldinov provided such reasons or proof or made a motion to adjourn the case.\n\nId. Thus, the Khamovniki Court properly moved forward with the case despite Mosha' s\n\nabsence. Id.\n\n         On June 16, 2018, after learning that Yandex, Inc. is the U.S.-based branch ofYandex,\n\nN.V., 1 Mosha brought suit in New York State court and Yandex, Inc. later removed the action to\n\nthis Court. Doc. 1; Doc. 31, 9. In his complaint, Mosha also alleges that Y andex, Inc. violated\n\nthe user agreements for Yandex, LLC and Yandex.com (\"Yandex.com\"), a search engine\n\nregistered to Yandex Europe A.G., another Yandex, N.V. subsidiary, which prohibit users from\n\ndistributing harmful, illegal, slanderous, etc. information. Doc. 1 ,r 14. Mosha claims he has no\n\nadequate remedy at law and seeks injunctive relief against Yandex, Inc., so they will remove the\n\n\n\n\n1\n Mosha erroneously asserts that Yandex, Inc. is the U.S.-based branch ofYandex, LLC, but in fact the two\ncompanies are sister entities owned by the same parent corporation, Yandex, N.V. Doc.2812; Doc. 31, 15.\n\n                                                       5\n\fsearch results that defame and humiliate him, as well as, compensatory and punitive damages in\n\nthe amount of $100,000. Doc. 1, Ex. A      ,r 20.\nII. DISCUSSION\n\n     A.      International Comity's Res Judicata Effect on Foreign Judgments\n\n          Y andex, Inc. argues that the issues litigated in the Khamovniki Court action are identical\n\nto the ones being litigated here and thus this action is precluded by the doctrine of international\n\ncomity abstention. Doc. 30, 7. \"It is well established that United States courts are not obliged to\n\nrecognize judgments rendered by a foreign country[] but may choose to give res judicata effect\n\nto foreign judgments on the basis of comity.\" Alesayi Beverage Corp. v. Canada Dry Corp., 947\n\nF. Supp. 658,663 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), ajf'd, 122 F.3d 1055 (2d Cir. 1997).\n\n              1. International Comity\n\n          The seminal case on enforcing foreign judgments, Hilton v. Guyot, defines international\n\ncomity as \"the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative,\n\nexecutive or judicial acts of another nation .... \" 159 U.S. 113, 164 (1895). If the foreign forum\n\nprovided the plaintiff with a full and fair trial before a court of competent jurisdiction, under a\n\nsystem likely to secure an impartial administration of justice, then the foreign action should not\n\nbe tried afresh. Id. at 202-03. There is one widely recognized exception to honoring comity and\n\nthat is in cases where enforcing the foreign judgment would prejudice or undermine domestic\n\ninterests. See Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods, Ltd., 237 F. Supp. 2d 394,446 (S.D.N.Y.\n\n2002), ajf'd, 346 F.3d 357 (2d Cir. 2003); see also Rapture Shipping, Ltd. v. Allround Fuel\n\nTrading B. V, 350 F. Supp. 2d 369,373 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (holding courts generally extend comity\n\nwhen it does not prejudice rights of United States citizens or violate domestic policy).\n\n\n\n\n                                                    6\n\f       Whether to dismiss a case on international comity grounds lies within the discretion of\n\nthe district court. See Finanz AG Zurich v. Banco Economico S.A., 192 F.3d 240, 246 (2d Cir.\n\n1999). The application of comity varies depending on whether a party seeks recognition of a\n\nforeign judgment that has become final or of a pending parallel proceeding that has yet to reach a\n\nfinal judgment. Klonis v. Nat'! Bank of Greece, S.A., 487 F. Supp. 2d 351, 355 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).\n\nIf the foreign judgment is still pending, then the Second Circuit has instructed district courts to\n\ndetermine whether exceptional circumstances exist that justify surrendering jurisdiction. Royal\n\n& Sun All. Ins. Co. of Canada v. Century Int'! Arms, Inc., 466 F.3d 88, 92-93 (2d Cir. 2006).\n\nThe case at bar relates to a final foreign judgment. Doc. 32, Ex. L.\n\n                       a. Full and Fair Hearing in Russia\n\n       Mosha had a full and fair opportunity to present his position in the Khamovniki Court,\n\nwhich is a court of general jurisdiction and was authorized to adjudicate Mosha' s claims. Doc.\n\n30, 7; see also Doc. 28, Ex. 10-B (Article 22 of the CPC). While Mosha does not dispute the\n\nKhamovniki Court's jurisdiction, he alleges that the judgment was ex parte because he was\n\nseeking political asylum in the United States at the time and could not appear in person to\n\npresent his case. Doc. 31, 12. However, Article 48 of the CPC states that individuals have the\n\nright to represent themselves or act through representatives. Doc. 28, Ex. 7-B at 3. Kamaldoniv,\n\nMasha's counsel, was duly notified at the September 29, 2017 court appearance that the next\n\ncourt date was November 13, 2017. Id. The Russian Appellate Court took this into\n\nconsideration when upholding the Khamovniki Court's decision to continue the case in Masha's\n\nabsence, especially as he did not provide the Khamovniki Court with a reason for not appearing\n\nnor sending a representative to appear on his behalf. Id. at 4. Mosha was also represented in the\n\nRussian Appellate Action, by Yu. V. Blokhin (\"Blokhin\"). Id. at 1.\n\n\n\n                                                  7\n\f       Mosha then makes conclusory allegations that he lost his case because of bias within the\n\nRussian judicial system. Doc. 31, 7. The Second Circuit has been reluctant to find foreign\n\ncourts \"corrupt\" or \"biased.\" In re Arbitration between Monegasque De Reassurances S.A.M v.\n\nNak Naftogaz of Ukraine, 311 F .3d 488, 499 (2d Cir. 2002). To establish that a foreign forum is\n\ninadequate, a party must show evidence of corruption \"specifically targeted at a party\" rather\n\nthan make broad claims about the judicial system as a whole. Zeevi Holdings Ltd. v. Republic of\n\nBulgaria, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38565, at *24 (S.D.N.Y. April 5, 2011), aff'd, 494 F. App'x\n\n110 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing Monegasque De Reassurances S.A.M v. Nak Naftogaz of Ukr., 311\n\nF.3d 488,494 (2d Cir. 2002)). These concerns are even more forceful where the parties\n\nconsented to jurisdiction in the allegedly inadequate forum in the first place. Id.\n\n       Mosha contends that Yandex, LLC routinely denies requests to de-index websites and\n\nusually prevails in court actions when its denial is challenged. Doc. 31, 7. He further argues that\n\nhe did not prevail against Y andex, LLC because he was not part of the political or business elite\n\nin Russia. Id. Allegedly, only one plaintiff has won a case against Yandex, LLC and that person\n\nhad political government connections. Id. However, Mosha has not proffered any factual\n\nevidence that either he or Y andex, LLC were targets of corruption. He consented to jurisdiction\n\nin the Khamovniki Court when he filed suit there. Accordingly, Mosha has not sufficiently pled\n\nthat he did not have a full and fair hearing in Russia.\n\n                       b. Foreign Judgment Does Not Offend Domestic Public Policy\n\n       Next, Mosha argues that the Khamovniki Court decision offends New York's public\n\npolicy and violates his constitutional rights. Doc. 31, 11. He argues that the Khamovniki Court\n\nimproperly deemed the statements about him being a criminal and a felon as true, in light of\n\nArticle 152 of the CPC's provision that the accused party carries a burden of proving that the\n\n\n\n                                                  8\n\fchallenged statements are true. Id. at 8-9, 11. Mosha cites to a U.S. Supreme Court case\n\nholding that the presumption of innocence is an axiomatic principle in the American justice\n\nsystem. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 523 (1979). However, when the Khamovniki Court said\n\nthat it had no grounds for granting Mosha' s claims because the challenged information contained\n\nfeatures of criminal acts for which the statute of limitations had not yet expired, it was referring\n\nto Article 10.3 which does not allow requests to remove information of that nature. Doc. 32, Ex.\n\nL at 2. The Khamovniki Court was referencing the category of information at issue, not making\n\na judgment as to whether Mosha was a criminal or not. Thus, Mosha has not demonstrated that\n\nthe Khamovniki Court violated domestic public policy and international comity is applicable\n\nhere.\n\n           1. Res Judicata Effect\n\n        However, while international comity is applicable here, the issues litigated in the foreign\n\njudgment are not identical to those in the instant case and the Court cannot give the foreign\n\njudgment res judicata effect. Federal courts normally apply either domestic federal or state law,\n\ndepending on the nature of the claim, to determine the preclusive effect of a foreign judgment.\n\nSee Alfadda v. Fenn, 966 F. Supp. 1317, 1329-30 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Courts have applied the\n\nprinciple of comity to preclude re-litigation of substantially the same issues which have already\n\nbeen determined by a foreign court based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Id. at 1325. The\n\ndoctrine of res judicata broadly encompasses the notion that \"a right, question, or fact distinctly\n\nput in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, as a ground of\n\nrecovery, cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their\n\nprivies[.]\" Mitchell v. Nat'! Broad. Co., 553 F.2d 265, 268 (2d Cir. 1977) (quoting S. Pac. R.\n\nCo. v. United States, 168 U.S. 1, 48 (1897)).\n\n\n\n                                                  9\n\f        The doctrine of res judicata embraces two concepts: issue preclusion and claim\n\npreclusion. Murphy v. Gallagher, 761 F.2d 878, 879 (2d Cir. 1985). Issue preclusion, often\n\nreferred to as collateral estoppel, is succinctly defined as \"the preclusive effect of a judgment that\n\nprevents a party from litigating a second time an issue of fact or law that has once been\n\ndecided.\" Murphy, 761 F.2d at 879. The Second Circuit has held that collateral estoppel\n\nrequires two levels of inquiry: \"(1) the court must determine if the issues are identical and the\n\nissues necessarily decided in the prior action are decisive in the present action; and, (2) the court\n\nmust determine whether the party to be bound had a full and fair opportunity to contest the\n\ndetermination.\" Alesayi, 947 F. Supp. at 666 (citing Conte v. Justice, 996 F.2d 1398, 1400 (2d\n\nCir. 1993)).\n\n        It is well-settled in this Circuit that literal privity is not required for res judicata to apply.\n\nMonahan v. New York City Dep 't of Corr., 214 F.3d 275,285 (2d Cir. 2000). Privity exists\n\nwhen the interests of a nonparty were adequately represented in the initial action. Waldman v.\n\nVil!. of Kiryas Joel, 39 F. Supp. 2d 370, 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), ajf'd, 207 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2000).\n\nA nonparty's interests can be adequately represented when they had a sufficiently close\n\nrelationship with a defendant in the prior action to support preclusion. Id; see also Melwani v.\n\nJain, 02 Civ. 1224, 2004 WL 1900356, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2004) (applying resjudicata\n\neven when two companies were separate entities, because they had overlapping shareholders,\n\nofficers, and directors).\n\n       In the opposition, Mosha claims that Y andex, Inc. sells advertisements for Yandex.ru and\n\nis involved in its operations. Doc. 31, 16. Yandex, Inc. does not dispute that it sells\n\nadvertisements for the Y andex brand but denies having ownership or authority over Y andex.ru.\n\nDoc. 40, 22. Mosha further asserts that Yandex, Inc. and Yandex, LLC are run by the same\n\n\n\n                                                    10\n\fgroup of individuals and provided the management staff pages for Yandex.com and Yandex.ru as\n\nevidence. Doc. 31, 16; see also Doc. 33, Ex. T. Yandex, Inc. disputes overlapping management\n\nwith Yandex LLC. Doc. 41      ,r,r 3-4.   Accordingly, the facts before the Court are insufficient to\n\ndetermine whether Y andex LLC represented Y andex, Inc.' s interests during the Khamovniki\n\nCourt action.\n\n       Next, the Court determines that the issues litigated in the foreign action are not identical\n\nto those being litigated in the instant action. In the Khamovniki Court action, Mosha argued that\n\nY andex, LLC provided access to websites that contained defamatory information about Mosha\n\nand asked for injunctive relief to de-index those websites and damages. Doc. 33, Ex. S. The\n\nKhamovniki Court decided the case pursuant to Russia's \"Right to be Forgotten\" law, which\n\ngives the person making the request access to information that is distributed in violation of\n\nRussian law and is untrue, outdated, or that has lost significance to the person making the request\n\ndue to subsequent events or actions of the person making the request. Doc. 32, Ex. L.\n\n        \"Issues are not identical when the standards governing them are significantly different.\"\n\nCullen v. Margiotta, 811 F.2d 698, 732 (2d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1021 (1987). In\n\nthe present action, Mosha brings claims under New York common law of ( 1) libel, as Y andex,\n\nInc. allegedly made the defamatory information searchable and refused to remove it, and (2)\n\ntortious interference with contractual relations, as the defamatory content allegedly damaged\n\nMasha's contractual relationships with this business clients. Doc. 1, Ex. A      ,r,r 17-20.   To\n\nestablish a claim for libel under New York law, a plaintiff must allege: (1) a written defamatory\n\nstatement concerning the plaintiff; (2) publication to a third party; (3) fault; (4) falsity of the\n\ndefamatory statement; and (5) damages. See, e.g., Kalaimantano GMBHv. Motion in Time Inc.,\n\n939 F. Supp. 2d 392,419 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). Tortious interference with contractual relationships\n\n\n\n                                                    11\n\fis comprised of four elements: (1) existence of a valid contract enforceable by the plaintiff, (2)\n\ndefendant's knowledge of the contract, (3) the intentional procurement by the defendant of the\n\nbreach of contract without justification, and (4) resultant damages therefrom. See, e.g., Kirch v.\n\nLiberty Media Corp., 449 F.3d 388,401 (2d Cir. 2006). Since the standards governing Mosha's\n\nclaims in the previous and present actions differ significantly, the Khamovniki Court decision\n\ndid not decide the same issues presented in this case.\n\n          Accordingly, the Court declines to grant resjudicata effect to the foreignjudgment.\n\n     B.      Failure to State a Claim\n\n          Even though international comity abstention does not apply to this action, Mosha has\n\nfailed to plead the elements of libel and tortious interference with contractual relations as a\n\nmatter oflaw pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6). When ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion to\n\ndismiss, district courts are required to accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and\n\nto draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor. Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 124 (2d\n\nCir. 2013). However, this requirement does not apply to legal conclusions, bare assertions, or\n\nconclusory allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,678, 681, 686 (2009) (citing Bell At!.\n\nCorp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A plaintiff is required to support his claims with\n\nsufficient factual allegations to show \"more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted\n\nunlawfully.\" Id. If the plaintiff has not \"nudged [his] claims across the line from conceivable to\n\nplausible, [the] complaint must be dismissed.\" In re Express Scripts Holding Co. Sees, Litig.,\n\nNo. 16 Civ. 3338 (ER), 2018 WL 2324065, *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2018) (quoting Twombly, 550\n\nU.S. at 570).\n\n\n\n\n                                                  12\n\f               1. Libel\n\n       Mosha fails to meet the five elements of libel, which to reiterate are: (1) a written\n\ndefamatory statement concerning the plaintiff; (2) publication to a third party; (3) fault; (4)\n\nfalsity of the defamatory statement; and (5) damages. Kalaimantano, 939 F. Supp. 2d 392 at\n\n419. Mosha identifies one set of purported defamatory statements which alleged he was a cursed\n\nJew, a scammer, and that it is in his blood to cheat and clean people out; and that all Jewish\n\npeople should be killed or they \"will plunder us all.\" Doc. 1, Ex. A ,i 6. Statements that tend to\n\ninjure another in his or her trade, business or profession can be considered defamation per se.\n\nPure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, LLC, 813 F. Supp. 2d 489,550\n\n(S.D.N.Y.2011); see also Van-Go Transp. Co., Inc. v. NYC Ed. of Educ., 971 F. Supp. 90, 98\n\n(E.D.N. Y. 1997) (\"Reputational injury to a person's business or to a company consists of a\n\nstatement that either imputes some form of fraud or misconduct or a general unfitness,\n\nincapacity, or inability to perform one's duties.\").\n\n       But courts have consistently held that the allegedly defamatory statement must affect the\n\nplaintiffs actual business profession, such as when it references a matter of significance and\n\nimportance to the business operations, rather than a more general reflection upon the plaintiffs\n\ncharacter or qualities. Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc., 813 F. Supp. 2d at 550; see also\n\nKalimantano, 939 F. Supp. 2d at 419-20 (finding statement was not defamation per se when it\n\naccused plaintiff of stealing watch during business transaction when plaintiff did not allege his\n\nbusiness substantially involved watches or jewelry). Thus, the statement must impugn the\n\nplaintiffs ability to perform his or her specific occupation. Van-Go, 971 F. Supp. at 98-99.\n\n       Here, while the purported statement imputes fraud or misconduct to Mosha's character, it\n\ndoes not do so in relation to his important business operations, i.e., Mosha does not plead his\n\n\n\n                                                  13\n\fbusiness significantly involves his Jewish heritage, or specifically says that he cheats his\n\nbusiness customers. Doc. 1, Ex. A ,I 6. Additionally, Mosha did not plead that Yandex, Inc.\n\npublished the defamatory statements; he merely references seventeen website links which he\n\nclaims to contain defamatory information. Id. Also, while Mosha makes the conclusory\n\nallegation that the statements are false, he does not plead facts to demonstrate their falsity. Id.\n\nLastly, Mosha fails to allege special damages as required by law. It is well-settled that the\n\nplaintiff in a defamatory action must allege having incurred special damages as a result of the\n\ndefamatory statement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(g); Kalaimantano, 939 F.Supp.2d 392 at 419-20; cf\n\nVan-Go, 971 F. Supp. at 98 (holding when exception applies when statement impugns plaintiffs\n\nbusiness reputation, which is libel per se, special damages need not be plead). Accordingly,\n\nMosha has not met the standard for pleading libel.\n\n               2. Tortious Interference\n\n        Similarly, Mosha has failed to plead the four elements of tortious interference with\n\ncontractual relations: (1) existence of a contract enforceable by the plaintiff, (2) defendant's\n\nknowledge of the existence of the contract, (3) the intentional procurement by the defendant of\n\nthe breach of contract, and (4) resultant damages to the plaintiff. Kirch Corp., 449 F.3d at 401.\n\nMosha merely asserts that there is no dispute he had a business relationship with his customers\n\nand that he notified an unspecified Y andex entity about the damage the allegedly defamatory\n\ncontent was causing to his business reputation. Doc. 28, Ex. A at 17-20. Mosha does not\n\nidentify any specific contracts that were breached, the parties to said contracts, or how such\n\ncontracts were breached-all essential elements for sustaining a claim of tortious interference.\n\nKirch Corp., 449 F.3d at 401. Lastly, he makes no plausible allegations that Yandex, Inc.\n\n\n\n\n                                                  14\n\fintentionally procured Mosha' s customers to breach their contract with him or that he suffered\n\nactual damages.\n\n          Accordingly, Mosha has failed to state a claim for libel and tortious interference pursuant\n\nto Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and so the case must be dismissed.\n\n     C.      Communications Decency Act \u00a7 230\n\n          Even if Mosha had sufficiently plead causes of action for libel and tortious interference as\n\na matter of law, Yandex, Inc. has immunity under the CDA. \"No provider or user of an\n\ninteractive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information\n\nprovided by another information content provider.\" 47 U.S.C. \u00a7 230(c)(l). The CDA further\n\nimmunizes such services from causes of action and liability imposed under any State or local law\n\nthat is inconsistent with the CDA. Id. \u00a7 230(e)(3); Manchanda v. Google, No. 16-CV-3350\n\n(JPO), 2016 WL 6806250, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2016) (holding courts have interpreted CDA\n\nas granting broad immunity to Internet service providers for defamation and other related causes\n\nof action). The CDA defines \"interactive computer service\" as \"any information service, system,\n\nor access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a\n\ncomputer service.\" 47 U.S.C. \u00a7 230(\u00a3)(2). Courts have widely held that as aggregators of third-\n\nparty content, Internet search providers are interactive computer services, and as such, have\n\nimmunity under the CDA. Fed. Trade Comm 'n v. LeadClick Media, LLC, No. 15-1009-CV,\n\n2016 WL 5338081, at *12 (2d Cir. Sept. 23, 2016) (\"Courts typically have held that internet\n\nservice providers, website exchange systems, online message boards, and search engines fall\n\nwithin this definition.\").\n\n          This District has also held that an Internet service's noncompliance with a request to\n\nremove an allegedly defamatory posting has no bearing on its absolute immunity under the CDA.\n\n\n\n                                                  15\n\fMurawski v. Pataki, 514 F. Supp. 2d 577, 591 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (holding that deciding whether or\n\nnot to remove content or when to remove content falls squarely within internet service provider's\n\nexercise of its publisher role and is therefore subject to CDA's broad immunity). The\n\nManchanda Court dismissed the action in its entirety when the defendants were only acting as\n\npublishers of the allegedly defamatory websites, and so the CDA immunized them from such\n\nliability. 2016 WL 6806250, at *3. In the present matter, there is no dispute that Yandex, Inc. is\n\nan Internet service provider, and Mosha has not alleged that it created or posted the allegedly\n\ndefamatory postings. Rather, Mosha seeks to hold Yandex, Inc. as a \"responsible representative\"\n\nfor websites indexed on Yandex.ru, a search engine managed by Yandex, Inc.'s sister company,\n\nYandex, LLC. Doc. 1, Ex. A 13. Accordingly, Yandex, Inc. has CDA immunity in this case.\n\n       However, Mosha argues that there is an exception to Yandex, Inc.'s CDA immunity\n\nbecause it contributed to violations of federal criminal statutes. Doc. 31, 14. The CDA does not\n\nimmunize Internet service providers from their contribution to violations of federal criminal\n\nstatutes committed by third parties: \"Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the\n\nenforcement of... any[] Federal criminal statute.\" 47 U.S.C. \u00a7 230(e)(l). However, Mosha\n\nconcedes that enforcement of Federal criminal statutes only extends to criminal proceedings.\n\nDoc. 31, 14 (citing Force v. Facebook, Inc., 304 F. Supp. 3d 315, 326-27 (E.D.N.Y. 2018)\n\n(holding\u00a7 230(e)(l) is inapplicable to civil actions)); see also Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d\n\n53, 71 (2d Cir. 2019) (same) (\"Facebook II\").\n\n       Mosha erroneously claims that the instant case is distinguishable from Face book because\n\nthat case dealt with a civil and not a criminal statute. Doc. 31, 14; see Facebook, 304 F. Supp.\n\n3d at 319 (applying CDA to claims brought under U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2331 et\n\nseq., a criminal statute). On the other hand, he argues, this case involves criminal statutes as\n\n\n\n                                                 16\n\fYandex, Inc. allegedly contributed to the violation of several Federal criminal statues, such as\n\nstalking, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2261A, blackmail, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 875, and mailing threatening\n\ncommunications, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 877, among others. Id. at 14-15. However, this reasoning is\n\ninapposite as the \u00a7 230(e)(1) exception does not apply in civil actions, even assuming arguendo\n\nthat civil litigants could \"enforce\" criminal statutes through a separate civil remedies provision.\n\nSee Facebook II, 934 F.3d at 71-72. Accordingly, the criminal law exception does not apply\n\nhere and Yandex, Inc. enjoys full CDA immunity.\n\n     D.      Remaini~g Claims\n\n          In the Complaint, Mosha appears to argue that Y andex, Inc. violated the terms of the\n\nYandex, LLC User Agreement and the Yandex.com User Agreement,2 which prohibit users from\n\ndistributing illegal, harmful, slanderous, unethical, etc. content. Doc. 1, Ex. A~ 14. However,\n\nhe has not provided factual support for these claims. He also failed to address them in the\n\nopposition to the motion, effectively abandoning them. DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht\n\nFin., Ltd., 323 F. Supp. 3d 393,449 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (holding when party fails to address claim\n\nin opposition to motion to dismiss, those claims are considered abandoned).\n\n          Having determined that Mosha' s claims fail under several standards, this Court declines\n\nto address whether the action should be dismissed on the alternative grounds offorum non\n\nconveniens and failure to join Yandex, LLC as a required party.\n\n\n\n\n2\n Mosha erroneously refers to them respectively as the \"Terms ofYandex Service Use\" and the \"Yandex Terms of\nService Users.\" Doc. I, Ex. A ,r 14; Doc. 28, 6-7.\n\n                                                     17\n\fIII. CONCLUSION\n\n         For the aforementioned reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The\n\nClerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 26, and close the case.\n\n         It is SO ORDERED.\n\nDated:     October 30, 2019\n           Nunc pro tune to September 30, 2019\n           New York, New York\n                                                                 ~,J?_\n                                                              Edgardo Ramos, U.S.D.J.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 18\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"50","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127025767905","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum & Opinion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2019-10-30T09:59:37.727089-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.406581-07:00","date_filed":"2019-10-30","time_filed":null,"entry_number":50,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-10-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":175,"description":"AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER re: 45 MOTION to Amend/Correct Judgment Granting Motion To Dismiss. filed by Yandex Inc.. For the aforementioned reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 26, and close the case. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 10/30/2019 Nunc pro tunc to September 30, 2019) (kv) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing. (Entered: 10/30/2019)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/107674730/","id":107674730,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/111980936/","id":111980936,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/7187049/51/mosha-v-yandex-inc/","date_created":"2019-10-30T09:59:36.757495-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.445343-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"51","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127025767973","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Conference","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2019-10-30T09:59:36.751253-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.431668-07:00","date_filed":"2019-10-30","time_filed":null,"entry_number":51,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-10-30.002","pacer_sequence_number":178,"description":"ORDER denying as moot 49 Letter Motion for Conference. Accordingly, the motion to amend/correct the judgment is GRANTED and the letter motion for a conference is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions, Docs. 45, 49. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 10/30/2019) (kv) (Entered: 10/30/2019)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/107473302/","id":107473302,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/111777352/","id":111777352,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/7187049/49/mosha-v-yandex-inc/","date_created":"2019-10-28T18:54:49.872486-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.396702-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"49","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127025755294","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Conference","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2019-10-28T18:54:49.863428-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.382555-07:00","date_filed":"2019-10-28","time_filed":null,"entry_number":49,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-10-28.005","pacer_sequence_number":173,"description":"LETTER MOTION for Conference addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Daniel A. Singer dated October 28, 2019. Document filed by Yandex Inc..(Singer, Daniel) (Entered: 10/28/2019)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/107398995/","id":107398995,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/111702338/","id":111702338,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/7187049/45/mosha-v-yandex-inc/","date_created":"2019-10-28T11:11:42.259535-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.307978-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"45","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127025750780","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Amend/Correct","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2019-10-28T11:11:42.254205-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.295039-07:00","date_filed":"2019-10-28","time_filed":null,"entry_number":45,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-10-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":162,"description":"MOTION to Amend/Correct Judgment Granting Motion To Dismiss. Document filed by Yandex Inc..(Singer, Daniel) (Entered: 10/28/2019)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/107398983/","id":107398983,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/111702326/","id":111702326,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/7187049/46/mosha-v-yandex-inc/","date_created":"2019-10-28T11:11:41.768100-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.327263-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"46","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127025750819","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2019-10-28T11:11:41.761823-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.315696-07:00","date_filed":"2019-10-28","time_filed":null,"entry_number":46,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-10-28.002","pacer_sequence_number":164,"description":"MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 45 MOTION to Amend/Correct Judgment Granting Motion To Dismiss. . Document filed by Yandex Inc.. (Singer, Daniel) (Entered: 10/28/2019)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/107398978/","id":107398978,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/111702321/","id":111702321,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/7187049/47/mosha-v-yandex-inc/","date_created":"2019-10-28T11:11:41.548097-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.351645-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"47","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127025750836","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Declaration in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2019-10-28T11:11:41.542012-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.339399-07:00","date_filed":"2019-10-28","time_filed":null,"entry_number":47,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-10-28.003","pacer_sequence_number":167,"description":"DECLARATION of Preston Carey in Support re: 45 MOTION to Amend/Correct Judgment Granting Motion To Dismiss.. Document filed by Yandex Inc.. (Singer, Daniel) (Entered: 10/28/2019)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/107398971/","id":107398971,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/111702314/","id":111702314,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/7187049/48/mosha-v-yandex-inc/","date_created":"2019-10-28T11:11:41.270921-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.373498-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"48","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127025750855","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Declaration in Support of Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2019-10-28T11:11:41.263152-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.358702-07:00","date_filed":"2019-10-28","time_filed":null,"entry_number":48,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-10-28.004","pacer_sequence_number":170,"description":"DECLARATION of Sergey Kalashnikov in Support re: 45 MOTION to Amend/Correct Judgment Granting Motion To Dismiss.. Document filed by Yandex Inc.. (Singer, Daniel) (Entered: 10/28/2019)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/104314710/","id":104314710,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/108591975/","id":108591975,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/7187049/44/mosha-v-yandex-inc/","date_created":"2019-10-01T14:49:09.458613-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.287380-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"44","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127025590880","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Judgment - Clerk","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2019-10-01T14:49:09.450053-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.274464-07:00","date_filed":"2019-09-30","time_filed":null,"entry_number":44,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-09-30.002","pacer_sequence_number":157,"description":"CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 43 Memorandum & Opinion. in favor of Yandex Inc. against Yury Mosha. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated September 30, 2019, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 09/30/2019) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal)(dt) . (Entered: 10/01/2019)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/104083158/","id":104083158,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/108358513/","id":108358513,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/7187049/43/mosha-v-yandex-inc/","date_created":"2019-09-30T10:41:07.346744-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.256685-07:00","sha1":"a8cc399e7854597a8f62a5acfba895f94b31cc2c","page_count":18,"file_size":86108,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.495793/gov.uscourts.nysd.495793.43.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.nysd.495793/gov.uscourts.nysd.495793.43.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nYURY MOSHA,\n\n                                Plaintiff,\n                                                                 OPINION AND ORDER\n                 \u2013 against \u2013                                        18 Civ. 5444 (ER)\n\nYANDEX INC.,\n\n                                Defendant.\n\n\nRamos, D.J.:\n\n       Yury Mosha (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d or \u201cMosha\u201d) initially brought this action in the Supreme Court\n\nof New York, County of New York against U.S.-based advertising company Yandex, Inc.\n\n(\u201cDefendant\u201d or \u201cYandex, Inc.\u201d) because its Russian sister corporation, Yandex, LLC (\u201cYandex,\n\nLLC\u201d) refused to remove websites from its search engine, Yandex.ru (\u201cYandex.ru\u201d), that\n\nallegedly contained defamatory information about Mosha. Yandex, Inc. removed the case and\n\nasked the Court to dismiss the action on several grounds: comity; collateral preclusion;\n\nimmunity granted by Communications Decency Act (\u201cCDA\u201d), 47 U.S.C. \u00a7 230; sufficiency of\n\nthe pleadings; and in the alternative, forum non conveniens and failure to join a required party.\n\nFor the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.\n\nI. BACKGROUND\n\n       Mosha is a citizen of New York and the founder and chief executive officer of Russian\n\nAmerica, Inc. (\u201cRussian America\u201d), a New York corporation. Doc. 1 \u00b61; Doc. 31, 4. Mosha\n\nadvertises his business heavily on the Internet and on various social media platforms. Doc. 31, 4.\n\nMost of his clientele is located in the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and other countries with\n\fRussian-speaking diasporas, as his business provides consulting services for Russian-speaking\n\nU.S. visitors. Id. at 4\u20135.\n\n       Yandex, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in\n\nMassachusetts, which helps American companies promote their products and services. Doc. 1 \u00b6\n\n1; Doc. 31, 15\u201316. Yandex, N.V., a Russian multinational corporation specialized in Internet-\n\nrelated products and services incorporated in the Netherlands, is the parent company for Yandex,\n\nInc. and Yandex, LLC. Doc. 30, 7 n.2. Yandex, LLC is a major operator of an Internet portal\n\nheadquartered in the Russian Federation. Doc. 28 \u00b6 2; Doc. 33, Ex. O (article reporting that in\n\n2017, Yandex, LLC commanded approximately 54% of online searches in Russia). Yandex,\n\nLLC owns and runs Yandex.ru. Doc. 28 \u00b6 2. Thus, entering search terms on Yandex.ru\n\ngenerates links to websites, which Yandex, LLC indexes. Indexing refers to various methods\n\nthat search engines use to make the contents of a website searchable and provide it with uniform\n\nsource locators (\u201cURLs\u201d or \u201chyperlinks\u201d). Doc. 31, 4.\n\n       Mosha believes he is the target of Russian hackers and business competitors that want to\n\ndisparage him and destroy his business. Doc. 1, Ex. A at 9. Internet trolls and hackers have\n\nposted defamatory statements about Mosha, often anonymously or under fake names. Id. at 10.\n\nWhen Mosha asked the uploaders to remove their false allegations, they blackmailed him and\n\npromised to continue posting defamatory allegations about him when he refused to pay. Id. As a\n\nresult, entering Mosha\u2019s name in the Russian language on Yandex.ru generates defamatory links\n\nabout him. Id. Some of the messages mentioned Mosha\u2019s Jewish nationality and religion and\n\nincited people to pursue Mosha and kill him and other Jewish people: \u201cMosha is a cursed Jew,\n\ntherefore it is in his blood to cheat and clean out people. All Jews are scammers, including\n\nMosha. This Mosha and all his cursed Jewish tribe should be killed. Otherwise they will\n\n\n\n                                                2\n\fplunder us all.\u201d Id. at 11. Additionally, the defamatory posts accused Mosha of being a\n\n\u201ccriminal\u201d and a \u201cfelon,\u201d which he claims is hurting his business. Doc. 31, 5.\n\n       In 2017, Mosha sued Yandex, LLC in Russia because the company refused to de-index\n\nthe allegedly defamatory websites. Doc. 33, Ex. S. Russia has a statute dubbed the \u201cRight to be\n\nForgotten\u201d law, Article 152 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (\u201cCPC\u201d),\n\nwhich allows an individual to request that search engine operators, like Google or Yandex, LLC,\n\nremove links that are incorrect or outdated. Doc. 42, Ex. 1-B. Under Article 152 of the CPC,\n\nRussian citizens have the right to file a lawsuit to refute information defaming their honor,\n\ndignity, or business reputation. Id. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 10.3 of Russian Federal\n\nLaw No. 149-FZ \u201cOn Information, Information Technologies and Information Protection\u201d\n\n(\u201cArticle 10.3\u201d), a citizen may ask the operator of a search engine that distributes advertisement\n\ntargeted at customers in the Russian Federation, to stop issuing information about the indexed\n\nwebsite. Doc. 42, Ex. 2-B. However, search engine operators do not have to remove links\n\nbecause of Article 10.3 for (1) information that contains features of criminal actions that are\n\npunishable by law and for which the terms of limitation for imposing criminal liability have not\n\nexpired, or (2) information on a citizen committing a crime for which the record of conviction\n\nhas not been expunged or which has not expired. Id.\n\n       Yandex, LLC has been ordered to comply with the \u201cRight to be Forgotten\u201d law in the\n\npast, for example in August 2017, a St. Petersburg court ordered it to remove search results about\n\na businessman. Doc. 33, Ex. R at 8. In another instance, a court ordered it to remove links with\n\ninformation that allegedly defamed the dignity and business reputation of a former minister of\n\nagriculture. Id. Mosha relied on the \u201cRight to be Forgotten\u201d statute to sue Yandex, LLC in the\n\nKhamovniki District Court of Moscow (the \u201cKhamovniki Court\u201d), where it is headquartered.\n\n\n\n                                                 3\n\fDoc. 32 \u00b6 22. The search terms which allegedly led to defamatory links at various Internet\n\naddresses included: \u201cYury Mosha\u2013Exposing a Fraudster,\u201d \u201cYury Mosha the Swindler,\u201d \u201cYury\n\nMosha the Rogue,\u201d \u201cYury Mosha the Scammer,\u201d and \u201cYury Mosha Deceived.\u201d Id. at Ex. L.\n\nMosha asserted that the information posted on these websites was inaccurate as he did not\n\ncommit fraudulent acts, steal money, or deceive his clients. Id.\n\n        On November 13, 2017, the Khamovniki Court decided the case against Mosha. Doc. 32,\n\nEx. L. Mosha\u2019s complaint to the Khamovniki Court shows that he was represented by a lawyer\n\nnamed Viktor Viktorovich Kamaldinov (\u201cKamaldinov\u201d), a member of the Moscow Bar\n\nAssociation. Doc. 33, Ex. S. However, neither Mosha nor his lawyer appeared for the court\n\nsession in front of the Khamovniki Court, despite having been notified of the time and place of\n\nthe hearing. Doc. 28, Ex. 7-B. Yandex, LLC sent representatives who asked the court to dismiss\n\nthe case, arguing that the claims were groundless. Doc. 32, Ex. L at 2. The Khamovniki Court\n\nmoved forward with the case despite Mosha\u2019s unexplained absence, finding that it was his will to\n\nrefuse to exercise his right to a trial. Id.\n\n        The Khamovniki Court held that Yandex, LLC\u2019s refusal to de-index the websites was\n\nlawful and justified for numerous reasons: (1) Mosha presented no evidence, and the record did\n\nnot reflect, that the sites distributed the information in violation of Article 10.3; (2) the Yandex\n\nsearch system on Yandex.ru automatically indexes publicly available information on the Internet\n\nand does not distribute the information, so it is not liable for third-party content; (3) Russia\u2019s\n\nconstitution guarantees the right to freely share information; and (4) per Article 10.3, the\n\nwebsites contained information about activities with criminal features (i.e. Articles 158 (robbery)\n\nand 159 (swindling) of the Russian Federation Criminal Code) and the time limit for imposing\n\n\n\n\n                                                  4\n\fcriminal liability for those actions had not yet expired. Id. at 3\u20134. Accordingly, the Khamovniki\n\nCourt dismissed the claim against Yandex, LLC and granted Mosha leave to appeal. Id. at 4.\n\n        On June 4, 2018, a judicial panel for civil matters in Moscow (the \u201cRussian Appellate\n\nCourt\u201d) upheld the Khamovniki Court\u2019s decision. Doc. 28, 7-B. Mosha was represented by a\n\nnew attorney, Yu. V. Bokhin, who sought to reverse the Khamovniki Court decision because\n\nMosha had not defrauded his clients and on procedural grounds because he was not physically\n\npresent at the hearing and was allegedly not notified of the hearing in a timely manner. Id. at 1.\n\nThe Russian Appellate Court took into consideration that during the Khamovniki Court action,\n\nMosha was represented by counsel who was duly notified of the date and time of the court\n\nhearing. Id. at 3. Article 167 of the CPC requires that parties notify the court of reasons for\n\nfailure to appear and provide proof that such reasons were valid. Id. at 4. However, neither\n\nMosha nor Kamaldinov provided such reasons or proof or made a motion to adjourn the case.\n\nId. Thus, the Khamovniki Court properly moved forward with the case despite Mosha\u2019s\n\nabsence. Id.\n\n         On June 16, 2018, after learning that Yandex, Inc. is the U.S.-based branch of Yandex,\n\nN.V., 1 Mosha brought suit in New York State court and Yandex, Inc. later removed the action to\n\nthis Court. Doc. 1; Doc. 31, 9. In his complaint, Mosha also alleges that Yandex, Inc. violated\n\nthe user agreements for Yandex, LLC and Yandex.com (\u201cYandex.com\u201d), a search engine\n\nregistered to Yandex Europe A.G., another Yandex, N.V. subsidiary, which prohibit users from\n\ndistributing harmful, illegal, slanderous, etc. information. Doc. 1 \u00b6 14. Mosha claims he has no\n\nadequate remedy at law and seeks injunctive relief against Yandex, Inc., so they will remove the\n\n\n\n\n1\n Mosha erroneously asserts that Yandex, Inc. is the U.S.-based branch of Yandex, LLC, but in fact the two\ncompanies are sister entities owned by the same parent corporation, Yandex, N.V. Doc. 28 \u00b6 2; Doc. 31, 15.\n\n                                                        5\n\fsearch results that defame and humiliate him, as well as, compensatory and punitive damages in\n\nthe amount of $100,000. Doc. 1, Ex. A \u00b6 20.\n\nII. DISCUSSION\n\n     A.    International Comity\u2019s Res Judicata Effect on Foreign Judgments\n\n       Yandex, Inc. argues that the issues litigated in the Khamovniki Court action are identical\n\nto the ones being litigated here and thus this action is precluded by the doctrine of international\n\ncomity abstention. Doc. 30, 7. \u201cIt is well established that United States courts are not obliged to\n\nrecognize judgments rendered by a foreign country[] but may choose to give res judicata effect\n\nto foreign judgments on the basis of comity.\u201d Alesayi Beverage Corp. v. Canada Dry Corp., 947\n\nF. Supp. 658, 663 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), aff\u2019d, 122 F.3d 1055 (2d Cir. 1997).\n\n           1. International Comity\n\n       The seminal case on enforcing foreign judgments, Hilton v. Guyot, defines international\n\ncomity as \u201cthe recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative,\n\nexecutive or judicial acts of another nation\u2026.\u201d 159 U.S. 113, 164 (1895). If the foreign forum\n\nprovided the plaintiff with a full and fair trial before a court of competent jurisdiction, under a\n\nsystem likely to secure an impartial administration of justice, then the foreign action should not\n\nbe tried afresh. Id. at 202\u201303. There is one widely recognized exception to honoring comity and\n\nthat is in cases where enforcing the foreign judgment would prejudice or undermine domestic\n\ninterests. See Dow Jones & Co. v. Harrods, Ltd., 237 F. Supp. 2d 394, 446 (S.D.N.Y.\n\n2002), aff\u2019d, 346 F.3d 357 (2d Cir. 2003); see also Rapture Shipping, Ltd. v. Allround Fuel\n\nTrading B.V., 350 F. Supp. 2d 369, 373 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (holding courts generally extend comity\n\nwhen it does not prejudice rights of United States citizens or violate domestic policy).\n\n\n\n\n                                                  6\n\f       Whether to dismiss a case on international comity grounds lies within the discretion of\n\nthe district court. See Finanz AG Zurich v. Banco Economico S.A., 192 F.3d 240, 246 (2d Cir.\n\n1999). The application of comity varies depending on whether a party seeks recognition of a\n\nforeign judgment that has become final or of a pending parallel proceeding that has yet to reach a\n\nfinal judgment. Klonis v. Nat\u2019l Bank of Greece, S.A., 487 F. Supp. 2d 351, 355 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).\n\nIf the foreign judgment is still pending, then the Second Circuit has instructed district courts to\n\ndetermine whether exceptional circumstances exist that justify surrendering jurisdiction. Royal\n\n& Sun All. Ins. Co. of Canada v. Century Int\u2019l Arms, Inc., 466 F.3d 88, 92\u201393 (2d Cir. 2006).\n\nThe case at bar relates to a final foreign judgment. Doc. 32, Ex. L.\n\n                       a. Full and Fair Hearing in Russia\n\n       Mosha had a full and fair opportunity to present his position in the Khamovniki Court,\n\nwhich is a court of general jurisdiction and was authorized to adjudicate Mosha\u2019s claims. Doc.\n\n30, 7; see also Doc. 28, Ex. 10-B (Article 22 of the CPC). While Mosha does not dispute the\n\nKhamovniki Court\u2019s jurisdiction, he alleges that the judgment was ex parte because he was\n\nseeking political asylum in the United States at the time and could not appear in person to\n\npresent his case. Doc. 31, 12. However, Article 48 of the CPC states that individuals have the\n\nright to represent themselves or act through representatives. Doc. 28, Ex. 7-B at 3. Kamaldoniv,\n\nMosha\u2019s counsel, was duly notified at the September 29, 2017 court appearance that the next\n\ncourt date was November 13, 2017. Id. The Russian Appellate Court took this into\n\nconsideration when upholding the Khamovniki Court\u2019s decision to continue the case in Mosha\u2019s\n\nabsence, especially as he did not provide the Khamovniki Court with a reason for not appearing\n\nnor sending a representative to appear on his behalf. Id. at 4. Mosha was also represented in the\n\nRussian Appellate Action, by Yu. V. Blokhin (\u201cBlokhin\u201d). Id. at 1.\n\n\n\n                                                  7\n\f       Mosha then makes conclusory allegations that he lost his case because of bias within the\n\nRussian judicial system. Doc. 31, 7. The Second Circuit has been reluctant to find foreign\n\ncourts \u201ccorrupt\u201d or \u201cbiased.\u201d In re Arbitration between Monegasque De Reassurances S.A.M. v.\n\nNak Naftogaz of Ukraine, 311 F.3d 488, 499 (2d Cir. 2002). To establish that a foreign forum is\n\ninadequate, a party must show evidence of corruption \u201cspecifically targeted at a party\u201d rather\n\nthan make broad claims about the judicial system as a whole. Zeevi Holdings Ltd. v. Republic of\n\nBulgaria, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38565, at *24 (S.D.N.Y. April 5, 2011), aff\u2019d, 494 F. App\u2019x\n\n110 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing Monegasque De Reassurances S.A.M. v. Nak Naftogaz of Ukr., 311\n\nF.3d 488, 494 (2d Cir. 2002)). These concerns are even more forceful where the parties\n\nconsented to jurisdiction in the allegedly inadequate forum in the first place. Id.\n\n       Mosha contends that Yandex, LLC routinely denies requests to de-index websites and\n\nusually prevails in court actions when its denial is challenged. Doc. 31, 7. He further argues that\n\nhe did not prevail against Yandex, LLC because he was not part of the political or business elite\n\nin Russia. Id. Allegedly, only one plaintiff has won a case against Yandex, LLC and that person\n\nhad political government connections. Id. However, Mosha has not proffered any factual\n\nevidence that either he or Yandex, LLC were targets of corruption. He consented to jurisdiction\n\nin the Khamovniki Court when he filed suit there. Accordingly, Mosha has not sufficiently pled\n\nthat he did not have a full and fair hearing in Russia.\n\n                       b. Foreign Judgment Does Not Offend Domestic Public Policy\n\n       Next, Mosha argues that the Khamovniki Court decision offends New York\u2019s public\n\npolicy and violates his constitutional rights. Doc. 31, 11. He argues that the Khamovniki Court\n\nimproperly deemed the statements about him being a criminal and a felon as true, in light of\n\nArticle 152 of the CPC\u2019s provision that the accused party carries a burden of proving that the\n\n\n\n                                                  8\n\fchallenged statements are true. Id. at 8\u20139, 11. Mosha cites to a U.S. Supreme Court case\n\nholding that the presumption of innocence is an axiomatic principle in the American justice\n\nsystem. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 523 (1979). However, when the Khamovniki Court said\n\nthat it had no grounds for granting Mosha\u2019s claims because the challenged information contained\n\nfeatures of criminal acts for which the statute of limitations had not yet expired, it was referring\n\nto Article 10.3 which does not allow requests to remove information of that nature. Doc. 32, Ex.\n\nL at 2. The Khamovniki Court was referencing the category of information at issue, not making\n\na judgment as to whether Mosha was a criminal or not. Thus, Mosha has not demonstrated that\n\nthe Khamovniki Court violated domestic public policy and international comity is applicable\n\nhere.\n\n           1. Res Judicata Effect\n\n        However, while international comity is applicable here, the issues litigated in the foreign\n\njudgment are not identical to those in the instant case and the Court cannot give the foreign\n\njudgment res judicata effect. Federal courts normally apply either domestic federal or state law,\n\ndepending on the nature of the claim, to determine the preclusive effect of a foreign judgment.\n\nSee Alfadda v. Fenn, 966 F. Supp. 1317, 1329\u201330 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Courts have applied the\n\nprinciple of comity to preclude re-litigation of substantially the same issues which have already\n\nbeen determined by a foreign court based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Id. at 1325. The\n\ndoctrine of res judicata broadly encompasses the notion that \u201ca right, question, or fact distinctly\n\nput in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, as a ground of\n\nrecovery, cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their\n\nprivies[.]\u201d Mitchell v. Nat\u2019l Broad. Co., 553 F.2d 265, 268 (2d Cir. 1977) (quoting S. Pac. R.\n\nCo. v. United States, 168 U.S. 1, 48 (1897)).\n\n\n\n                                                  9\n\f        The doctrine of res judicata embraces two concepts: issue preclusion and claim\n\npreclusion. Murphy v. Gallagher, 761 F.2d 878, 879 (2d Cir. 1985). Issue preclusion, often\n\nreferred to as collateral estoppel, is succinctly defined as \u201cthe preclusive effect of a judgment that\n\nprevents a party from litigating a second time an issue of fact or law that has once been\n\ndecided.\u201d Murphy, 761 F.2d at 879. The Second Circuit has held that collateral estoppel\n\nrequires two levels of inquiry: \u201c(1) the court must determine if the issues are identical and the\n\nissues necessarily decided in the prior action are decisive in the present action; and, (2) the court\n\nmust determine whether the party to be bound had a full and fair opportunity to contest the\n\ndetermination.\u201d Alesayi, 947 F. Supp. at 666 (citing Conte v. Justice, 996 F.2d 1398, 1400 (2d\n\nCir. 1993)).\n\n        Yandex, Inc. is a sister entity to Yandex, LLC and thus was a privy in the Khamovniki\n\nCourt action. It is well-settled in this Circuit that literal privity is not required for res judicata to\n\napply. Monahan v. New York City Dep\u2019t of Corr., 214 F.3d 275, 285 (2d Cir. 2000). Privity\n\nexists when the interests of a nonparty were adequately represented in the initial action.\n\nWaldman v. Vill. of Kiryas Joel, 39 F. Supp. 2d 370, 382 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), aff\u2019d, 207 F.3d 105\n\n(2d Cir. 2000). A nonparty\u2019s interests can be adequately represented when they had a\n\nsufficiently close relationship with a defendant in the prior action to support preclusion. Id.; see\n\nalso Melwani v. Jain, 02 Civ. 1224, 2004 WL 1900356, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2004)\n\n(applying res judicata even when two companies were separate entities, because they had\n\noverlapping shareholders, officers, and directors). Mosha claims that Yandex, Inc. sells\n\nadvertisements for Yandex.ru and is involved in its operations. Doc. 31, 16. Yandex, Inc. does\n\nnot dispute that it sells advertisements for the Yandex brand but denies having ownership or\n\nauthority over Yandex.ru. Doc. 40, 22. Mosha asserts that Yandex, Inc. and Yandex, LLC are\n\n\n\n                                                   10\n\frun by the same group of individuals and provided the staff pages for Yandex.com and\n\nYandex.ru as evidence. Doc. 31, 16; see also Doc. 33, Ex. T. Yandex, Inc. does not dispute\n\noverlapping management, and so accordingly, Yandex, LLC adequately represented Yandex,\n\nInc.\u2019s interests during the Khamovniki Court action.\n\n        However, the Court determines that the issues litigated in the foreign action are not\n\nidentical to those being litigated in the instant action. In the Khamovniki Court action, Mosha\n\nargued that Yandex, LLC provided access to websites that contained defamatory information\n\nabout Mosha and asked for injunctive relief to de-index those websites and damages. Doc. 33,\n\nEx. S. The Khamovniki Court decided the case pursuant to Russia\u2019s \u201cRight to be Forgotten\u201d\n\nlaw, which gives the person making the request access to information that is distributed in\n\nviolation of Russian law and is untrue, outdated, or that has lost significance to the person\n\nmaking the request due to subsequent events or actions of the person making the request. Doc.\n\n32, Ex. L.\n\n        \u201cIssues are not identical when the standards governing them are significantly different.\u201d\n\nCullen v. Margiotta, 811 F.2d 698, 732 (2d Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1021 (1987). In\n\nthe present action, Mosha brings claims under New York common law of (1) libel, as Yandex,\n\nInc. allegedly made the defamatory information searchable and refused to remove it, and (2)\n\ntortious interference with contractual relations, as the defamatory content allegedly damaged\n\nMosha\u2019s contractual relationships with this business clients. Doc. 1, Ex. A \u00b6\u00b6 17\u201320. To\n\nestablish a claim for libel under New York law, a plaintiff must allege: (1) a written defamatory\n\nstatement concerning the plaintiff; (2) publication to a third party; (3) fault; (4) falsity of the\n\ndefamatory statement; and (5) damages. See, e.g., Kalaimantano GMBH v. Motion in Time Inc.,\n\n939 F. Supp. 2d 392, 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). Tortious interference with contractual relationships\n\n\n\n                                                   11\n\fis comprised of four elements: (1) existence of a valid contract enforceable by the plaintiff, (2)\n\ndefendant\u2019s knowledge of the contract, (3) the intentional procurement by the defendant of the\n\nbreach of contract without justification, and (4) resultant damages therefrom. See, e.g., Kirch v.\n\nLiberty Media Corp., 449 F.3d 388, 401 (2d Cir. 2006). Since the standards governing Mosha\u2019s\n\nclaims in the previous and present actions differ significantly, the Khamovniki Court decision\n\ndid not decide the same issues presented in this case.\n\n       Accordingly, the Court declines to grant res judicata effect to the foreign judgment.\n\n     B.    Failure to State a Claim\n\n       Even though international comity abstention does not apply to this action, Mosha has\n\nfailed to plead the elements of libel and tortious interference with contractual relations as a\n\nmatter of law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6). When ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion to\n\ndismiss, district courts are required to accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and\n\nto draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff\u2019s favor. Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 124 (2d\n\nCir. 2013). However, this requirement does not apply to legal conclusions, bare assertions, or\n\nconclusory allegations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 681, 686 (2009) (citing Bell Atl.\n\nCorp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A plaintiff is required to support his claims with\n\nsufficient factual allegations to show \u201cmore than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted\n\nunlawfully.\u201d Id. If the plaintiff has not \u201cnudged [his] claims across the line from conceivable to\n\nplausible, [the] complaint must be dismissed.\u201d In re Express Scripts Holding Co. Sees, Litig.,\n\nNo. 16 Civ. 3338 (ER), 2018 WL 2324065, *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2018) (quoting Twombly, 550\n\nU.S. at 570).\n\n\n\n\n                                                  12\n\f               1. Libel\n\n       Mosha fails to meet the five elements of libel, which to reiterate are: (1) a written\n\ndefamatory statement concerning the plaintiff; (2) publication to a third party; (3) fault; (4)\n\nfalsity of the defamatory statement; and (5) damages. Kalaimantano, 939 F. Supp. 2d 392 at\n\n419. Mosha identifies one set of purported defamatory statements which alleged he was a cursed\n\nJew, a scammer, and that it is in his blood to cheat and clean people out; and that all Jewish\n\npeople should be killed or they \u201cwill plunder us all.\u201d Doc. 1, Ex. A \u00b6 6. Statements that tend to\n\ninjure another in his or her trade, business or profession can be considered defamation per se.\n\nPure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, LLC, 813 F. Supp. 2d 489, 550\n\n(S.D.N.Y.2011); see also Van-Go Transp. Co., Inc. v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 971 F. Supp. 90, 98\n\n(E.D.N.Y. 1997) (\u201cReputational injury to a person\u2019s business or to a company consists of a\n\nstatement that either imputes some form of fraud or misconduct or a general unfitness,\n\nincapacity, or inability to perform one\u2019s duties.\u201d).\n\n       But courts have consistently held that the allegedly defamatory statement must affect the\n\nplaintiff\u2019s actual business profession, such as when it references a matter of significance and\n\nimportance to the business operations, rather than a more general reflection upon the plaintiff\u2019s\n\ncharacter or qualities. Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc., 813 F. Supp. 2d at 550; see also\n\nKalimantano, 939 F. Supp. 2d at 419\u201320 (finding statement was not defamation per se when it\n\naccused plaintiff of stealing watch during business transaction when plaintiff did not allege his\n\nbusiness substantially involved watches or jewelry). Thus, the statement must impugn the\n\nplaintiff\u2019s ability to perform his or her specific occupation. Van-Go, 971 F. Supp. at 98\u201399.\n\n       Here, while the purported statement imputes fraud or misconduct to Mosha\u2019s character, it\n\ndoes not do so in relation to his important business operations, i.e., Mosha does not plead his\n\n\n\n                                                 13\n\fbusiness significantly involves his Jewish heritage, or specifically says that he cheats his\n\nbusiness customers. Doc. 1, Ex. A \u00b6 6. Additionally, Mosha did not plead that Yandex, Inc.\n\npublished the defamatory statements; he merely references seventeen website links which he\n\nclaims to contain defamatory information. Id. Also, while Mosha makes the conclusory\n\nallegation that the statements are false, he does not plead facts to demonstrate their falsity. Id.\n\nLastly, Mosha fails to allege special damages as required by law. It is well-settled that the\n\nplaintiff in a defamatory action must allege having incurred special damages as a result of the\n\ndefamatory statement. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(g); Kalaimantano, 939 F.Supp.2d 392 at 419\u201320; cf.\n\nVan-Go, 971 F. Supp. at 98 (holding when exception applies when statement impugns plaintiff\u2019s\n\nbusiness reputation, which is libel per se, special damages need not be plead). Accordingly,\n\nMosha has not met the standard for pleading libel.\n\n               2. Tortious Interference\n\n       Similarly, Mosha has failed to plead the four elements of tortious interference with\n\ncontractual relations: (1) existence of a contract enforceable by the plaintiff, (2) defendant\u2019s\n\nknowledge of the existence of the contract, (3) the intentional procurement by the defendant of\n\nthe breach of contract, and (4) resultant damages to the plaintiff. Kirch Corp., 449 F.3d at 401.\n\nMosha merely asserts that there is no dispute he had a business relationship with his customers\n\nand that he notified an unspecified Yandex entity about the damage the allegedly defamatory\n\ncontent was causing to his business reputation. Doc. 28, Ex. A at 17\u201320. Mosha does not\n\nidentify any specific contracts that were breached, the parties to said contracts, or how such\n\ncontracts were breached\u2014all essential elements for sustaining a claim of tortious interference.\n\nKirch Corp., 449 F.3d at 401. Lastly, he makes no plausible allegations that Yandex, Inc.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 14\n\fintentionally procured Mosha\u2019s customers to breach their contract with him or that he suffered\n\nactual damages.\n\n        Accordingly, Mosha has failed to state a claim for libel and tortious interference pursuant\n\nto Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and so the case must be dismissed.\n\n     C.     Communications Decency Act \u00a7 230\n\n        Even if Mosha had sufficiently plead causes of action for libel and tortious interference as\n\na matter of law, Yandex, Inc. has immunity under the CDA. \u201cNo provider or user of an\n\ninteractive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information\n\nprovided by another information content provider.\u201d 47 U.S.C. \u00a7 230(c)(1). The CDA further\n\nimmunizes such services from causes of action and liability imposed under any State or local law\n\nthat is inconsistent with the CDA. Id. \u00a7 230(e)(3); Manchanda v. Google, No. 16-CV-3350\n\n(JPO), 2016 WL 6806250, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2016) (holding courts have interpreted CDA\n\nas granting broad immunity to Internet service providers for defamation and other related causes\n\nof action). The CDA defines \u201cinteractive computer service\u201d as \u201cany information service, system,\n\nor access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a\n\ncomputer service.\u201d 47 U.S.C. \u00a7 230(f)(2). Courts have widely held that as aggregators of third-\n\nparty content, Internet search providers are interactive computer services, and as such, have\n\nimmunity under the CDA. Fed. Trade Comm\u2019n v. LeadClick Media, LLC, No. 15-1009-CV,\n\n2016 WL 5338081, at *12 (2d Cir. Sept. 23, 2016) (\u201cCourts typically have held that internet\n\nservice providers, website exchange systems, online message boards, and search engines fall\n\nwithin this definition.\u201d).\n\n        This District has also held that an Internet service\u2019s noncompliance with a request to\n\nremove an allegedly defamatory posting has no bearing on its absolute immunity under the CDA.\n\n\n\n                                                15\n\fMurawski v. Pataki, 514 F. Supp. 2d 577, 591 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (holding that deciding whether or\n\nnot to remove content or when to remove content falls squarely within internet service provider\u2019s\n\nexercise of its publisher role and is therefore subject to CDA\u2019s broad immunity). The\n\nManchanda Court dismissed the action in its entirety when the defendants were only acting as\n\npublishers of the allegedly defamatory websites, and so the CDA immunized them from such\n\nliability. 2016 WL 6806250, at *3. In the present matter, there is no dispute that Yandex, Inc. is\n\nan Internet service provider, and Mosha has not alleged that it created or posted the allegedly\n\ndefamatory postings. Rather, Mosha seeks to hold Yandex, Inc. as a \u201cresponsible representative\u201d\n\nfor websites indexed on Yandex.ru, a search engine managed by Yandex, Inc.\u2019s sister company,\n\nYandex, LLC. Doc. 1, Ex. A \u00b6 3. Accordingly, Yandex, Inc. has CDA immunity in this case.\n\n       However, Mosha argues that there is an exception to Yandex, Inc.\u2019s CDA immunity\n\nbecause it contributed to violations of federal criminal statutes. Doc. 31, 14. The CDA does not\n\nimmunize Internet service providers from their contribution to violations of federal criminal\n\nstatutes committed by third parties: \u201cNothing in this section shall be construed to impair the\n\nenforcement of\u2026any [] Federal criminal statute.\u201d 47 U.S.C. \u00a7 230(e)(1). However, Mosha\n\nconcedes that enforcement of Federal criminal statutes only extends to criminal proceedings.\n\nDoc. 31, 14 (citing Force v. Facebook, Inc., 304 F. Supp. 3d 315, 326\u201327 (E.D.N.Y. 2018)\n\n(holding \u00a7 230(e)(1) is inapplicable to civil actions)); see also Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d\n\n53, 71 (2d Cir. 2019) (same) (\u201cFacebook II\u201d).\n\n       Mosha erroneously claims that the instant case is distinguishable from Facebook because\n\nthat case dealt with a civil and not a criminal statute. Doc. 31, 14; see Facebook, 304 F. Supp.\n\n3d at 319 (applying CDA to claims brought under U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2331 et\n\nseq., a criminal statute). On the other hand, he argues, this case involves criminal statutes as\n\n\n\n                                                 16\n\fYandex, Inc. allegedly contributed to the violation of several Federal criminal statues, such as\n\nstalking, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 2261A, blackmail, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 875, and mailing threatening\n\ncommunications, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 877, among others. Id. at 14\u201315. However, this reasoning is\n\ninapposite as the \u00a7 230(e)(1) exception does not apply in civil actions, even assuming arguendo\n\nthat civil litigants could \u201cenforce\u201d criminal statutes through a separate civil remedies provision.\n\nSee Facebook II, 934 F.3d at 71\u201372. Accordingly, the criminal law exception does not apply\n\nhere and Yandex, Inc. enjoys full CDA immunity.\n\n     D.      Remaining Claims\n\n          In the Complaint, Mosha appears to argue that Yandex, Inc. violated the terms of the\n\nYandex, LLC User Agreement and the Yandex.com User Agreement, 2 which prohibit users from\n\ndistributing illegal, harmful, slanderous, unethical, etc. content. Doc. 1, Ex. A \u00b6 14. However,\n\nhe has not provided factual support for these claims. He also failed to address them in the\n\nopposition to the motion, effectively abandoning them. DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht\n\nFin., Ltd., 323 F. Supp. 3d 393, 449 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (holding when party fails to address claim\n\nin opposition to motion to dismiss, those claims are considered abandoned).\n\n        Having determined that Mosha\u2019s claims fail under several standards, this Court declines\n\nto address whether the action should be dismissed on the alternative grounds of forum non\n\nconveniens and failure to join Yandex, LLC as a required party.\n\n\n\n\n2\n Mosha erroneously refers to them respectively as the \u201cTerms of Yandex Service Use\u201d and the \u201cYandex Terms of\nService Users.\u201d Doc. 1, Ex. A \u00b6 14; Doc. 28, 6\u20137.\n\n                                                     17\n\f\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"43","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127025579195","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Memorandum & Opinion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2019-09-30T10:41:07.337514-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.238432-07:00","date_filed":"2019-09-30","time_filed":null,"entry_number":43,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-09-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":154,"description":"OPINION AND ORDER re: 26 MOTION to Dismiss (refiling of docket no. 25 so that each document is filed separately as per the court's direction). filed by Yandex Inc.. For the aforementioned reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 26, and close the case. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 9/30/2019) (kv) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing. (Entered: 09/30/2019)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/60340569/","id":60340569,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/64442391/","id":64442391,"tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/"],"absolute_url":"/docket/7187049/42/mosha-v-yandex-inc/","date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.590842-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.230093-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"42","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127024100352","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.570216-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.218654-07:00","date_filed":"2019-02-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":42,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-02-04.003","pacer_sequence_number":148,"description":"DECLARATION of Sergey Kalashnikov in Support re: 26 MOTION to Dismiss (refiling of docket no. 25 so that each document is filed separately as per the court's direction)., 25 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss Complaint.. Document filed by Yandex Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-translator declaration, # 2 Exhibit 1-a- Article 152 (Russian), # 3 Exhibit 1-b-Article 152 (English), # 4 Exhibit 2-translator declaration, # 5 Exhibit 2-a-Article 10.3 (Russian), # 6 Exhibit 2-b Article 10.3 (English), # 7 Exhibit 3-translator declaration, # 8 Exhibit 3-a-Skrynnik case (Russian), # 9 Exhibit 3-b-Skrynnik case (English), # 10 Exhibit 4-translator declaration, # 11 Exhibit 4-a-Skrynnik upheld (Russian), # 12 Exhibit 4-b-Skrynnil upheld (English), # 13 Exhibit 5-translator's declaration, # 14 Exhibit 5-a-Budargin case (Russian), # 15 Exhibit 5-b-Budargin case (English), # 16 Exhibit 6-translator declaration, # 17 Exhibit 6-a-Budargin case upheld (Russian, # 18 Exhibit 6-b-Budargin case upheld (English), # 19 Exhibit 7-translator declaration, # 20 Exhibit 7-a- Article 6.1 (Russian), # 21 Exhibit 7-b-Article 6.1 (English), # 22 Exhibit 8-translator declaration, # 23 Exhibit 8-a-Article 57 (Russian), # 24 Exhibit 8-b Article 57 (English), # 25 Exhibit 9-translator declaration, # 26 Exhibit 9-a--Article 128.1(Russian), # 27 Exhibit 9-b-Article 128.1 (English), # 28 Exhibit 10-translator declaration, # 29 Exhibit 10-a-Article 20 (Russian), # 30 Exhibit 10-b- Article 20 (English), # 31 Exhibit 11-translator declaration, # 32 Exhibit 11-a-Article 318 (Russian), # 33 Exhibit 11-b -Article 318 (English), # 34 Exhibit 12-translator declaration, # 35 Exhibit 12-a-whois yandex.ru (Russian), # 36 Exhibit 12-b-whois yandex.ru (English), # 37 Exhibit 13 translator declaration, # 38 Exhibit 13-a whois yandex.com (Russian), # 39 Exhibit 13-b whois yandex.com (English), # 40 Exhibit 14-alleged defamatory postings from complaint indexed on four search engines, # 41 Exhibit 15-alleged defamatory postings from complaint index on Yandex.ru and Google, # 42 Exhibit 16-alleged defamatory postings from complaint not indexed on Yandex.ru)(Singer, Daniel) (Entered: 02/04/2019)","tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/"]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/60340568/","id":60340568,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/64442390/","id":64442390,"tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/"],"absolute_url":"/docket/7187049/41/mosha-v-yandex-inc/","date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.552910-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.211197-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"41","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127024100042","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.535638-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.198228-07:00","date_filed":"2019-02-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":41,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-02-04.002","pacer_sequence_number":144,"description":"DECLARATION of Preston Carey in Support re: 26 MOTION to Dismiss (refiling of docket no. 25 so that each document is filed separately as per the court's direction)., 25 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss Complaint.. Document filed by Yandex Inc.. (Singer, Daniel) (Entered: 02/04/2019)","tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/"]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/60340567/","id":60340567,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/64442389/","id":64442389,"tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/"],"absolute_url":"/docket/7187049/40/mosha-v-yandex-inc/","date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.519386-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.191193-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"40","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127024100028","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.496990-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.178114-07:00","date_filed":"2019-02-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":40,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-02-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":140,"description":"REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 26 MOTION to Dismiss (refiling of docket no. 25 so that each document is filed separately as per the court's direction)., 25 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss Complaint. . Document filed by Yandex Inc.. (Singer, Daniel) (Entered: 02/04/2019)","tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/"]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/60340566/","id":60340566,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/64442388/","id":64442388,"tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/"],"absolute_url":"/docket/7187049/39/mosha-v-yandex-inc/","date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.480538-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.167349-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"39","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.462434-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.154285-07:00","date_filed":"2019-02-01","time_filed":null,"entry_number":39,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-02-01.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ORDER granting 38 Letter Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Edgardo Ramos)(Text Only Order) (jar) (Entered: 02/01/2019)","tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/"]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/60340565/","id":60340565,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/64442387/","id":64442387,"tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/"],"absolute_url":"/docket/7187049/38/mosha-v-yandex-inc/","date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.445377-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.145536-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"38","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127024062036","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.429619-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.132919-07:00","date_filed":"2019-01-30","time_filed":null,"entry_number":38,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-01-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":136,"description":"FIRST LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for reply brief (reply papers due 02/04/2019) addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Daniel A. Singer dated January 30, 2019. Document filed by Yandex Inc..(Singer, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2019)","tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/"]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/60340564/","id":60340564,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/64442386/","id":64442386,"tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/"],"absolute_url":"/docket/7187049/37/mosha-v-yandex-inc/","date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.411976-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.125731-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"37","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.394814-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.116446-07:00","date_filed":"2019-01-23","time_filed":null,"entry_number":37,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-01-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ORDER granting 36 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant's reply is now due February 4, 2019. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Edgardo Ramos)(Text Only Order) (jar) (Entered: 01/23/2019)","tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/"]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/60340563/","id":60340563,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/64442385/","id":64442385,"tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/"],"absolute_url":"/docket/7187049/36/mosha-v-yandex-inc/","date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.376616-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.110065-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"36","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127024002289","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.361890-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.093961-07:00","date_filed":"2019-01-20","time_filed":null,"entry_number":36,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-01-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":132,"description":"SECOND LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to file reply to motion to dismiss from January 22, 2019 to and through February 4, 2019 on consent addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Daniel A. Singer dated 01/20/2019. Document filed by Yandex Inc..(Singer, Daniel) (Entered: 01/20/2019)","tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/"]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/60340562/","id":60340562,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/64442384/","id":64442384,"tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/"],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.345473-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.087465-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.333232-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.074672-07:00","date_filed":"2019-01-03","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-01-03.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply to Response to Brief due by 1/22/2019. (kv)","tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/"]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/60340561/","id":60340561,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/64442383/","id":64442383,"tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/"],"absolute_url":"/docket/7187049/35/mosha-v-yandex-inc/","date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.316686-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.065656-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"35","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127023894495","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.300886-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.047302-07:00","date_filed":"2019-01-03","time_filed":null,"entry_number":35,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-01-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":128,"description":"MEMO ENDORSED granting 34 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. ENDORSEMENT: The application is granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 1/3/2019) (kv) (Entered: 01/03/2019)","tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/"]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/60340560/","id":60340560,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/7187049/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/64442382/","id":64442382,"tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/"],"absolute_url":"/docket/7187049/34/mosha-v-yandex-inc/","date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.287407-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.040344-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"34","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"127023888084","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2019-03-31T20:44:11.271157-07:00","date_modified":"2021-07-29T01:15:32.028104-07:00","date_filed":"2019-01-02","time_filed":null,"entry_number":34,"recap_sequence_number":"2019-01-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":126,"description":"FIRST LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to file reply to motion to dismiss from January 7, 2019 to and through January 22, 2019 (on consent) addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Daniel A. Singer dated January 2, 2019. Document filed by Yandex Inc..(Singer, Daniel) (Entered: 01/02/2019)","tags":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/tag/1316/"]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=7187049&page_size=40"}