Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Barrett v. Fonorow

Barrett v. Fonorow

Case Date: 10/28/2003
Court: 2nd District Appellate
Docket No: 2-02-0886 Rel

No. 2--02--0886

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

_____________________________________________________________________________________________


STEPHEN BARRETT,

               Plaintiff-Appellant and
               Cross-Appellee,

v.

OWEN R. FONOROW and INTELISOFT
MULTIMEDIA, INC.,

              Defendants-Appellees and
              Cross-Appellants.

 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)		 Appeal from the Circuit Court
of Du Page County

 


No.  01--L--820


Honorable
Hollis L. Webster,
Judge, Presiding.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE O'MALLEY delivered the opinion of the court:

Stephen Barrett, M.D., appeals from the judgment of the circuit court dismissing his complaintagainst Owen Fonorow and Intelisoft Multimedia, Inc. (Intelisoft). Fonorow and Intelisoft cross-appeal, challenging the circuit court's judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Barrett ontheir motion for sanctions under Supreme Court Rule 137 (155 Ill. 2d R. 137). We affirm both thedismissal of Barrett's complaint and the denial of Intelisoft's motion for sanctions.

Barrett alleged in his complaint that he is a medical journalist, consultant, and consumeradvocate who runs a website at "www.quackwatch.com." The aims of "quackwatch" are to warn thepublic of "health fraud" and "unfounded medical claims" and to help the public "make educated andinformed consumer decisions about healthcare practices." A common target of "quackwatch" is thepractice of "alternative medicine." Fonorow is president of Intelisoft and operates a website at"www.internetwks.com," where he posts articles and other commentary. (Hereinafter Fonorow andIntelisoft are together referred to as "Intelisoft.") Between January 6, 2001, and May 22, 2001,Intelisoft posted on its website 10 articles authored by Patrick "Tim" Bolen. The articles containedseveral disparaging claims about Barrett, the gist of which was that he was a liar and a charlatan. Barrett alleged that Intelisoft knew or had reason to know that the disparaging remarks in the articleswere false and defamatory because "[o]ther webpages and articles that Fonorow and Intelisoft haveposted to their websites have had false and defamatory material about Dr. Barrett in them, and thishas been brought to their attention." Barrett brought one claim of defamation and one claim of falselight invasion of privacy (hereinafter "false light") against Intelisoft.

Intelisoft moved to dismiss the complaint under section 2--619(a)(9) of the Code of CivilProcedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2--619(a)(9) (West 2000)). Intelisoft argued that Barrett's claimswere barred by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (Act) (47 U.S.C.