text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
United States District Court, S.D. New York
May 25, 2004.
NEXANS WIRES S.A. and LACROIX & KRESS GmbH, Plaintiffs, -against- SARK-USA, INC. and SARKUYSAN ELEKTROLITIK BAKIR SANAYII VE TICARET A.S., Defendants
Defendants Sark-USA, Inc. ("Sark-USA") and Sarkuysan Elektrolitik
Bakir Sanayii Ve Ticaret A.S. ("Sarkuysan") have moved to dismiss this action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and 12(b) (1).
Specifically, defendants contend that plaintiffs Nexans Wires S.A.
("Nexans") and Lacroix & Kress GmbH ("L&K") lack standing to sue under
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), 18 U.S.C. § 1030. By order of
October 16, 2003, defendants' motion to dismiss was converted into a
motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs were directed to submit the facts
upon which they rely for standing under the CFAA, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g), and
defendants were directed to submit a response. For the reasons that
follow, defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the federal
claims is granted.
Plaintiffs filed this action against their wire and cable industry
competitors Sark-USA and Sarkuysan for unfair competition. Plaintiff
L&K, a German corporation, is wholly owned by plaintiff Nexans, a French
corporation. Defendant Sark-USA is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in North Carolina and is the wholly owned
subsidiary of defendant Sarkuysan, a Turkish corporation. The
complaint*fn1 asserts claims of misappropriation of trade secrets under
New York and North Carolina law, unfair competition under New York, North Carolina and South Carolina law, tortious interference with
prospective economic advantage and conversion under New York law, and
five claims under the CFAA. Federal jurisdiction is based on the CFAA
All of plaintiffs' claims arise out of the subject of a related
action, A.E.B. International. Inc. and Atlantic Specialty Wire, Inc. v.
Myron Daniel Schatzberg, Sark-USA, Inc., Brigit Skeet Finley, and
Sarkuysan Elektrolitik Bakir Sanayii Ve Ticaret A.So, 02 Civ. 6312
(MGC). In that action, the plaintiffs, A.E.B. International, Inc. ("AEB")
and its sister company, Atlantic Specialty Wire, Inc. ("ASW"), sue
defendants Sarkuysan and Sark-USA and two former employees, Myron Daniel
Schatzberg ("Schatzberg") and Brigit Skeet Finley ("Finley") for
misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with prospective
economic advantage, unfair competition and violations of the CFAA.
According to the complaint in this action, plaintiffs Nexans and
L&K manufacture and supply "advanced copper and optical fiber wire
and cable solutions to the infrastructure, industry and building
markets." Compl. ¶ 13. Plaintiffs are a major supplier of AEB and
produce products which AEB then distributes throughout the United States.
Plaintiffs assert that in order to maintain this relationship with AEB,
it was necessary for plaintiffs to store much of their "confidential
proprietary information" on the computers of AEB and ASW. This information consisted of plaintiffs'
pricing schedules as well as manufacturing information. The information
was stored in AEB's secure centralized computer system in New York and in
ASW's computer system in South Carolina. Plaintiffs' information was
segregated from other files and password protected to insure
Sarkuysan manufactures wire and cable products to be sold in the United
States in direct competition with plaintiffs and AEB. Plaintiffs allege
that at sometime prior to the departure of Schatzberg and Finley from AEB
and ASW, Schatzberg, Finley and Sarkuysan, agreed to establish a new
company, Sark-USA. The organization of Sark-USA enabled Sarkuysan to
operate directly in the United States and to serve as the "repository" of
plaintiffs' "stolen and misappropriated confidential, proprietary
information." Compl. ¶ 28.
The essence of plaintiffs' complaint is that defendants induced Finley
and Schatzberg to steal plaintiffs' proprietary information from AEB and
ASW. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Finley had full access to
AEB's computer system, including the information plaintiffs provided to
AEB. Plaintiffs allege that beginning in March 2002, under instructions
from defendants, Finley used her personal Yahoo e-mail account to
download plaintiffs' proprietary information, without AEB's approval, and then sent the information to defendants. The complaint
alleges that on April 15, 2002, Schatzberg, acting at the request of
defendants, unlawfully obtained access to ASW's computer systems, created
a "back-up" tape of the files and deleted confidential business
information, including certain of plaintiffs' proprietary information.
From April 2002 through May 21, 2002, Schatzberg, without the
authorization of his employer, allegedly photocopied or downloaded
plaintiffs' information from AEB's computer system, for the benefit of
In addition to the alleged misappropriation of plaintiffs' information
from the computers of AEB and ASW, plaintiffs assert that Schatzberg
misappropriated information gleaned from a visit to L&K's factory. In
March 2002, Schatzberg traveled to L&K's factory in Germany with the
Chairman of AEB, A. Erkan Buyuksoy ("Buyuksoy") where the two toured the
L&K factories and learned detailed information about the manufacturing
process, which each agreed to keep confidential. However, Schatzberg
allegedly violated this agreement and divulged all that he had learned
from the trip to defendants.
I. Basis for Jurisdiction
Defendants moved under both Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint. "A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1)
when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate
the case. In contrast, a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is a dismissal on
the merits of the action-a determination that the facts alleged in the
complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Nowak
v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182, 1187 (2d Cir.
1996)(noting the difficulties of distinguishing between the two).
Therefore, the court must first have assumed jurisdiction over the matter
before a 12(b)(6) motion can be decided. Id. (citing Bell v. Hood.
327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946)). As the Second Circuit has noted, "Bell v.
Hood, instructs us that, when the contested basis of federal jurisdiction
is also an element of plaintiff's asserted federal claim, the claim
should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction except when it `appears
to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining
jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and
frivolous.'" AVC Nederland B.V. v. Atrium Inv. Partnership, 740 F.2d 148
(2d Cir. 1984)(internal citations omitted). Plaintiffs' assertion of
jurisdiction under the CFAA is not wholly insubstantial and frivolous.
Therefore, this court has jurisdiction, and an examination under
12(b)(6), rather than under 12(b)(1) is appropriate.*fn2 II. Conversion of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss into a Motion for
Summary Judgment
"If, on a motion . . . to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading
are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be
treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule
56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all
material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12
(b). As noted above, defendants' motion to dismiss was converted into a
motion for summary judgment by order of October 16, 2003. It became clear
at oral argument that the real issue is whether plaintiffs can present
sufficient evidence of "loss" to have standing to sue under the CFAA's
civil provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g). In order to have standing,
plaintiffs must have suffered a "loss" of at least $5,000.
18 U.S.C. § 1030(g), (a)(5)(B)(i). The parties were given a full
opportunity to present all relevant materials.*fn3 III. Standard for Summary Judgment
Where there are no material facts in dispute, a motion for summary
judgment should be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). "Rule 56(c) mandates the
entry of summary judgment . . . against a party who fails to make a
showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to
that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof
at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). "In such a
situation, there can be `no genuine issue as to any material fact,' since
a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the
nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial."
Id. at 322-23. In deciding whether a genuine issue exists, a court must
"examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing
the motion, and resolve ambiguities and draw reasonable inferences
against the moving party." In re Chateaugay Corp., 10 F.3d 944, 957 (2d
Cir. 1993).
The issue in dispute is whether plaintiffs can prove an essential
element of their CFAA claims, i.e. a "loss . . . aggregating at least
$5,000 in value." 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g), (a)(5)(B)(i).
IV. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Claims
Plaintiffs allege that defendants Sark-USA and Sarkuysan violated the CFAA by inducing Schatzberg and Finley to copy and delete
the computer files of AEB and ASW, files which contained plaintiffs'
"confidential proprietary information."
The CFAA is a criminal statute, but it also provides for a civil right
of action. 18 U.S.C. § 1030(g). Plaintiffs have alleged that the acts of
defendants violated § 1030(a)(2)(C), (a)(4), (a)(5)(i), (a) (5) (ii), and
(a)(5) (iii).*fn4 Under § 1030(a)(2)(C), "[w]hoever . . . intentionally
accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access,
and thereby obtains . . . information from any protected computer if the
conduct involved an interstate or foreign communication" may be
punished. Section 1030(a)(4) prohibits accessing a protected computer
without authorization "knowingly and with intent to defraud" and thereby
"obtain[ing] anything of value." Section 1030(5)(A)(i) prohibits
knowingly transmitting "a program, information, code, or command" and
intentionally causing unauthorized damage, to a protected computer. Under
§ 1030(5)(A)(ii) and (iii), respectively, it is a violation to
"recklessly cause [] damage" or to simply "cause [] damage" through the
unauthorized access of a protected computer.
Section 1030(g) provides that a civil action may only be brought if
the conduct involves one of the factors set forth in clause (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) of subsection (a)(5)(B).
18 U.S.C. § 1030(g). Here, the only applicable section of (a)(5)(B) is
(a)(5)(B)(i): "loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period . . .
aggregating at least $5,000 in value." Section 1030(e)(ll) defines "loss"
any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost
of responding to an offense, conducting a damage
assessment, and restoring the data, program, system,
or information to its condition prior to the offense,
and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or other
consequential damages incurred because of interruption
of service.
It is clear from the complaint that AEB and ASW, not plaintiffs, own
the computers which were allegedly unlawfully accessed. This raises the
question of whether a third-party who does not own or control the
unlawfully accessed computer has standing to bring suit under the Act. At
least one court has specifically held that there is no ownership or
control requirement in the CFAA. Theofel, 341 F.3d at 986 ("Individuals
other than the computer's owner may be proximately harmed by unauthorized access, particularly if they have rights to data stored on
it."), Because plaintiffs store their information on AEB and ASW
computers they may suffer the type of harm contemplated by the statute if
those computers are damaged.
Notably, the Theofal court found it premature to consider whether the
damages or losses suffered by the non-owner plaintiff fell within the
ambit of the Act because the plaintiff had not yet alleged its "loss."
Theofal, 341 F.3d at 986. Therefore, it is unclear from Theofal what
"loss" the non-owner must incur to have standing under § 1030(g).
The case defendants cite to support their argument that a corporation
cannot be found liable under the CFAA for the actions of its employees is
inapposite. In Doe v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, No. Civ.
00-100-M, 2001 WL 873063 (D. N.H. July 19, 2001), the court declined to
find a hospital liable for the unlawful acts of one of its doctors
because the doctor's violation of the CFAA was contrary to hospital
policy and actually harmed the hospital. Here, Schatzberg and Finley are
alleged to have acted at the direction of Sark-USA and Sarkuysan.
A. Plaintiffs' Alleged "Loss"
1. Travel Expenses
Plaintiffs' allegation of "loss" in their complaint simply tracks the
language of the statute, and states that they have suffered a "loss" of at least $5,000 in value. In response to the
order directing plaintiffs to submit the facts upon which the alleged
loss is based, plaintiffs submitted two affidavits of Wolfgang Placke,
the General Manager of L&K. The "loss" asserted in the affidavits is
the cost of two business trips that Placke and L&K's Sales Director,
Gerhard Maerker, took from their L&K offices in Germany to AEB's New
York offices. Placke states that they flew to New York in June of 2002
for the sole purpose of responding to the news that Schatzberg had
abruptly resigned. Buyuksoy had apparently informed Placke that in an
investigation after Schatzberg's abrupt departure, AEB had discovered
that the system had been unlawfully accessed and certain files deleted.
Plaintiffs were told that some of their information might have been
taken. Tracking the statutory definition of "loss," Placke states that he
and Maerker "met with representatives of AEB to discuss the theft of
[their] proprietary information" and that the trip was to "respond [] to
the AEB computer offense" and to "conduct [] an assessment of the damage
caused by the impact of the computer theft on the integrity of the
proprietary information, that [p]laintiffs had stored on AEB's computer
system." Aff. Oct. 29, 2003, ¶ 7.
Placke asserts that the second trip, made by Maerker in February 2003,
was prompted by the resignation of Finley. The affidavit does not state
when Placke received this information. But, according to the complaint, Finley resigned in June 2002, seven
months before the February trip. The total cost of these two trips was
$8,007.14, which plaintiffs argue meets the jurisdictional threshold of a
"loss" of at least $5,000.
Defendants make several arguments as to why the cost of these business
trips does not constitute "loss" within the meaning of the CFAA.*fn5 The
most compelling argument is that neither trip's cost constitutes "loss"
because the cost was unrelated to investigating or remedying damage to a
computer. Placke's affidavit does not assert that he or Maerker or even
Buyuksoy ever examined a computer or made a computer assessment.
Moreover, Placke clarifies in his second affidavit that when he stated in
his first affidavit that Buyuksoy checked the AEB computer system after
Schatzberg's departure, he is not actually sure who checked the computer
nor is he sure whether it was an AEB or ASW computer. In sum, defendants
argue that plaintiffs' executives did not engage in any activity on their
trips that could not have just as easily taken place over the telephone.
In response, plaintiffs assert that they have established a prima facie
case of standing by alleging that they incurred $8,007.14 in costs in
responding to CFAA violations. Placke's affidavits describe the meetings which took place, including one at
Le Cirque restaurant, as well as a confidential meeting between Placke,
Maerker, and Buyuksoy where they "discussed what proprietary and
confidential information was believed to have been stolen, how that
proprietary and confidential information had been stolen, and what steps
we could take in the future to prevent [] such computer-based theft."
Aff. Dec. 8, 2003, ¶ 9.
Placke also states that his belief in having meetings such as this
conducted in person, made it impossible for these conversations to have
taken place over the telephone. In sum, plaintiffs state that the
expenses incurred by their senior executives in traveling to a meeting to
discuss confidential information stolen by a customer's faithless
employees constitutes "loss" within the meaning of the CFAA.
a. Definition of "Loss"
Prior to the clarifying amendment of 2001, "loss" was not defined.
"Damage" was defined as "any impairment to the integrity or availability
of data, a program, a system, or information that (A) causes loss
aggregating at least $5,000 in value during any 1-year period to one or
more individuals . . ." Since the first sentence of § 1030(g) provides a
right of action for anyone who suffers "damage or loss," Judge Buchwald
considered whether "loss," as well as "damage," was subject to the $5,000 statutory minimum. See In re Doubleclick Inc. Privacy
Litigation, 154 F. Supp.2d 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)(concluding-that "loss" as
well as "damage" was subject to the $5,000 threshold).
The In re Doubleclick court examined the legislative history of the
statute in order to understand the meaning of the then undefined term
The 1994 amendment [to § 1030(g)] required both
"damage" and "loss," but it is not always clear what
constitutes "damage." For example, intruders often
alter existing log-on programs so that user passwords
are copied to a file which the hackers can retrieve
later. After retrieving the newly created password
file, the intruder restores the altered log-on file to
its original condition. Arguably, in such a
situation, neither the computer nor its information is
damaged. Nonetheless, this conduct allows the intruder
to accumulate valid user passwords to the system,
requires all system users to change their passwords,
and requires the system administrator to devote
resources to resecuring the system. Thus, although
there is arguably no "damage," the victim does suffer
"loss." In re Doubleclick 154 F. Supp.2d at 521
(quoting S. Rep. No. 104-357, at 11 (1996) (emphasis
It is also clear that the remedial costs contemplated by "loss" are not
limited to the cost of actual repairs themselves, but incurred "because
of interruption of service." Id. at 522, n. 29 (citing 132 Cong. Rec. S14453 (daily ed. Oct. 1, 1986)(statement of
co-sponsor Sen. Trible): "[i]n addition; the concept of `loss' embodied
in this paragraph will not be limited solely to the cost of actual
repairs. The Justice Department has suggested that other costs, including
the cost of lost computer time necessitated while repairs are being
made, be permitted to count toward the [then] $1,000 valuation. I and the
other sponsors of this bill agree."). Therefore, it seems that "loss"
means any remedial costs of investigating the computer for damage,
remedying the damage and any costs incurred because the computer cannot
function while or until repairs are made. However, there is nothing to
suggest that the "loss" or costs alleged can be unrelated to the
Although the court was examining a slightly different issue, the In re
Doubleclick court's analysis is especially helpful because it examined a
proposed definition of "loss" which is virtually identical to the current
definition. Id. at 522, n. 29.*fn6 The court noted that this amendment
"expressly seeks to clarify (1) what constitutes "loss," and (2) that
"loss" is subject to the $5,000 monetary threshold." Id. The court was not
persuaded that plaintiffs had alleged facts to support a finding of "loss"
or "damage" of at least $5,000 from any single act. Id. at 525 (rejecting
the argument that there were any remedial costs and expressing doubt that
the economic value of the demographic information on plaintiffs' website
or the value of the plaintiffs' attention span could help satisfy the
jurisdictional threshold). In doing so, the court explained that some
damage is too far outside the scope of what the statute is to protect
against, "namely, damage to computer systems and electronic information
by hackers." 154 F. Supp.2d at 525, n.34 (criticizing America Online,
Inc. v. LCGM, 46 F. Supp.2d 444, 451 (E.D. Va. 1998) ("AOL") which held
that damage to "reputation or goodwill" could count toward the [then]
"damage" threshold).
The court dismissed the CFAA claim citing the plaintiffs' inability to
meet the jurisdictional threshold of at least $5,000 of "loss" or, then,
"damage." Id. at 526. In 2001, 1030(g) and the definition of "damage"
were amended, and a definition of "loss" was added. Nothing in the
legislative history of the 2001 amendment suggests that the costs
incurred in "responding to an offense" or in "conducting a damage
assessment" can be unrelated to a computer. See Cong. Rec. S 10913, 106th
Cong (Oct. 24, 2000)(noting the inclusion of the definition of "loss" and
the intent to incorporate the $5,000 jurisdictional threshold into a
description of the offense). Therefore, the meaning of "loss," both before and after the term was
defined by statute, has consistently meant a cost of investigating or
remedying damage to a computer, or a cost incurred because the computer's
service was interrupted.
Another decision sheds additional light on the types of harm the
statute contemplates. In Tyco. Int'l Inc. v. John Does, No. 01 Civ.
3856, 2003 WL 21638205 (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2003), Magistrate Judge Freeman
considered whether the cost of investigating the identity of a computer
hacker could constitute compensatory damages under the CFAA. Although the
court was clearly calculating damages, rather than determining "loss" for
purposes of standing, the court makes clear that the types of costs which
the CFAA allows recovery for are related to fixing a computer. The court
[w]hile it is true, . . . that the CFAA allows
recovery for losses beyond mere physical damage to
property, the additional types of damages awarded by
courts under the Act have generally been limited to
those costs necessary to assess the damage caused to
the plaintiff's computer system or to resecure the
system in the wake of a hacking attack. See EF
Cultural Travel BV v. Explorica, Inc., 274 F.3d 577,
584-85 (1st Cir. 2001)(awarding costs of assessing
damage); United States v. Middleton, 231 F.3d 1207,
1213-14 (9th Cir. 2000)(awarding costs of
"investigating and repairing the damage" FN3); In re
Doubleclick Inc. Privacy Litigation, 154 F. Supp.2d 497,
524-25 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (recognizing only costs in
remedying damage as recoverable under CFAA).
FN3. Although the court in Middleton uses the word
"investigating," it is clear from both the court's language
("investigating . . . the damage") and the facts of
the case that this investigation involved only
assessing the damage to the system not locating
and collecting information about the hacker.
Even cases which have taken an expansive view of the CFAA
jurisdictional threshold have not suggested that "loss" can include a
cost unrelated to the computer. In Pacific Aerospace & Electronics,
Inc. v. Taylor, No. CS-02-0412-AAM, 2003 WL 23100804 (E.D. Wash. June
20, 2003), the court denied a motion to dismiss an employer's CFAA suit
against a faithless employee. Id. (citing EF Cultural Travel BV v.
Explorica, Inc., 274 F.3d 577 (1st Cir. 2001) for the proposition that
the $5,000 threshold can be easily satisfied). However, in Explorica the
First Circuit did not endorse the district court's reasoning that "loss"
encompasses a loss of business or goodwill. Id. at 584. The Court of
Appeals found that the $20,944.92 plaintiff paid "to assess whether their
website had been compromised" was the only necessary consideration, as it
was clear that this cost satisfied the statutory threshold. Id. Thus, the "loss" in Explorica was the cost
of hiring a consultant to assess the computer damage, not a general
b. Plaintiffs' Travel Expenses Do Not Constitute "Loss"
Quoting the language of the statute, Placke's affidavits assert that
the two trips were for the purpose of "conducting a damage assessment"
and "responding to the offense." 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(11). However, the
affidavits do not allege any facts showing that this assessment or
response was in any way related to a computer. It was undoubtedly
necessary for plaintiffs to speak with AEB and ASW about the business
repercussions of the alleged actions of Schatzberg and Finley. Plaintiffs
have a close working relationship with AEB and ASW and the activities of
faithless employees would be cause for alarm and discussion. These
employees had substantial non-computer information, which had been
gleaned from Schatzberg's trip to L&K and his photocopying of AEB and
ASW files. However, nothing in the two affidavits indicates that during
these meetings computers were being investigated or repaired. In fact,
one of the meetings took place at an expensive restaurant and another was
strictly between Maerker, Placke and Buyuksoy, which eliminates the
possibility that they were working with a computer technician or
consultant. It is clear that these meetings were held to discuss the
problem of the information of AEB and ASW getting into the hands of competitors. However, nothing suggests that the trips were taken
to engage in any type of computer investigation or repair. Furthermore,
no facts are alleged showing that preventive measures were added to the
computers or that the system was augmented to tighten security after
all, these were discussions between senior executives not computer
experts. Placke states that the meeting was held at AEB's offices because
of his belief in having meetings conducted in person. He does not suggest
that the meetings were held at AEB so that he and Maerker could inspect
or repair the computers.
In the related action, AEB has asserted that it incurred costs in
investigating the unauthorized access and in making repairs, and has also
asserted claims under the CFAA. However, Nexans & L&K do not allege
that they were required to contribute to any such costs incurred by AEB,
nor do they state that they paid technicians to conduct a computer
investigation or make repairs to AEB's computers.
Plaintiffs do not cite any case which holds that the travel expenses of
these senior executives constitutes "loss," and although there are very
few opinions on the meaning of "loss" as used in § 1030(g), no case
relies on costs so unrelated to the computer itself. Nothing in either
case law or legislative history suggests that something as far removed
from a computer as the travel expenses of senior executives constitutes
"loss." Therefore, the international travel expenses that plaintiffs' senior executives incurred to attend a meeting with their customer's
senior executive, in which no computers are said to have been examined,
and no computer consultant said to have been present cannot satisfy the
$5,000 "loss" requirement of the statute.
2. Lost Revenue
Finally, at oral argument, plaintiffs contended that the revenue they
lost as a result of defendants' use of their information to unfairly
compete for business constitutes "loss" within the meaning of § 1030(e)
(11) and gives them standing under § 1030(g). Placke asserts that at
trial, plaintiffs will be able to prove the loss of two specific business
However, plaintiffs state in a later submission, that they are not
arguing that the revenue they lost as a result of the alleged unfair
competition alone satisfies the CFAA's "loss" requirement. It is not
clear whether plaintiffs continue to press their argument that revenue
lost as a result of lost business opportunities may be counted toward the
$5,000 threshold. Nevertheless, their argument is unpersuasive.
First, the "revenue lost" which constitutes "loss" under § 1030(e) (11)
appears from the plain language of the statute to be revenue lost "because
of [an] interruption of service." § 1030(e) (11). Therefore, if Nexans
and L&K had lost revenue because the computer systems of AEB and ASW
were down, that would seem to be the type of lost revenue contemplated by the statute.
However, plaintiffs are not claiming to have lost money because the
computers of AEB or ASW were inoperable, but rather because of the way
the information was later used by defendants.
Second, persuasive authority suggests that plaintiffs' lost revenue due
to lost business opportunity does not constitute "loss" under the
statute. In Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 126 F. Supp.2d 238, 252
n. 12 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), aff'd 2004 WL 103400 (2d Cir. 2004) the court
examined a similar issue. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's "end
use" of information retrieved from its website allowed it to compete
unfairly and that as a result plaintiffs lost business and goodwill. The
plaintiff argued that this lost revenue should count toward the $5,000
threshold (then "damages"). The court found that if:
lost good will [sic] or business could provide the
[$5,000 amount, however,] it could only do so if it
resulted from the impairment or unavailability of data
or systems. The good will losses cited by [the
plaintiff] are not the result of harm addressed by
1030(a)(5) [(iii)]. How [the defendant] uses the []
data, once extracted, has no bearing on whether
[defendant] has impaired the availability or integrity
of [plaintiff's] data or computer systems in
extracting it.
Lastly, the cases on which plaintiffs rely are not persuasive. In Four
Seasons Hotels and Resorts BV v. Consorcio Barr, S.A., 267 F. Supp.2d 1268
(S.D. Fla. 2003), the court made an explicit finding that the hotel:
"suffered `loss' under the statute of $28,000 in expenses incurred in
investigating and responding to these offenses, which occurred within a
one-year period." Id. at 1324. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. v.
Safeguard Self Storage, Inc., 119 F. Supp.2d 1121 (W.D. Wash. 2000),
stands only for the proposition that an employer can state a claim
against a faithless former employee even where the computer data was not
physically impaired. The Shurgard court was not considering whether the
$5,000 threshold had been met. Id. In sum, revenue lost because the
information was used by the defendant to unfairly compete after
extraction from a computer does not appear to be the type of "loss"
contemplated by the statute.
Plaintiffs do not cite any case which lends support to finding a "loss"
of $5,000 based on (1) travel costs of senior executives or (2) loss of
revenue unrelated to interruption of computer service. Therefore,
defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' five
claims under the CFAA is granted. V. Plaintiffs' State Law Claims
Plaintiffs also assert state law claims for misappropriation of trade
secrets under New York and North Carolina law, unfair competition under
New York, North Carolina and South Carolina law, and tortious
interference with prospective economic advantage and conversion under New
York law. Supplemental jurisdiction over these claims is appropriate
since they arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts as the
federal claims. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966).
Now that the federal claims have been dismissed, the exercise of
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims is discretionary.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726 (noting that judicial
economy, convenience, and fairness are the factors to be balanced in
deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction). Given the
substantial overlap of issues, claims, and parties in this action and the
closely related case, A.E.B. International, Inc. v. Schatzberg et al., 02
Civ. 6312 (MGC), it would be wasteful and inefficient to dismiss the
state law claims in this action. Therefore, I exercise my discretion to
retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs have not raised any factual dispute and have not shown that
they can prove an essential element of their federal claims, namely,
that., plaintiffs suffered a "loss" of $5,000 within the meaning of the
CFAA, 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary
judgment dismissing the CFAA claims is granted. In the interest of
judicial economy, I retain jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
8 months
Medium | Female
Tiana is a very sweet and playful girl that came to All About Animals from a high kill shelter after she was picked up as a stray and found to have ring worm. Her fungus is gone and she is ready for her new forever home. Tiana is great with other cats and ok with dogs after proper introductions. She is spayed, tested, vaccinated, and micro-chipped. Tiana's estimated birthdate is 4/1/16 and her adoption fee is $100.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Lakewood Tractor Supply
About Search Results
YP - The Real Yellow PagesSM - helps you find the right local businesses to meet your specific needs. Search results are sorted by a combination of factors to give you a set of choices in response to your search criteria. These factors are similar to those you might use to determine which business to select from a local Yellow Pages directory, including proximity to where you are searching, expertise in the specific services or products you need, and the amount of useful content in the listing, such as consumer reviews, detailed descriptions and photos, to help you evaluate a business's suitability for you. In addition, YP advertisers receive higher placement in the default ordering of search results on our sites and apps, and they may appear in sponsored listings on the top or side of the search results page.
1. Tractor Supply Co
201 E Fairmount AveLakewood, NY 14750
Of I could rate less than 1 star, I sure would! Went in looking for something specific. Asked an employee and was treated like scum! Was the most …
2. M & L Engine
Serving the Lakewood Area.
From Business: We offer industrial engines such as: Isuzu Industrial, Isuzu Marine, General Motors, John Deere and Kohler Diesel, We also Natural Gas Engines. a wide variety of di…
3. Tamcar Tractor Parts
5569 Eke RDAshville, NY 14710
From Business: Salvage Tractors & Parts, Antique Tractors & Parts, New & Used Parts, Whole & Partial Tractors for sale!: We sell parts for these tractors- Boleans, Minneapolis- Mo…
4. Z&M Ag and Turf
1756 Lindquist DrFalconer, NY 14733
5. Southern Tier Trailer Sales
4018 N Main Street ExtJamestown, NY 14701
6. Wiggers John & Son Garage
7700 E Main StClymer, NY 14724
From Business: JOHN WIGGERS & SON INC is an authorized New Holland dealership specializing in the sale and service of New Holland equipment. JOHN WIGGERS & SON INC is proud to be …
7. Sherman Central Tractor
122 Kendrick StSherman, NY 14781
8. B&R Head & Block Repair
Serving the Lakewood Area.
From Business: Custom machining, sleeving and boring. We do surface grinding up to 134 and line boring up to 100 and cylinder boring up to 20 X 30 . We also re-condition Aerial, A…
Showing1-8 of 8results


text:
THIS IS A DIRECTORY PAGE. Britannica does not currently have an article on this topic.
Learn about this topic in these articles:
...layer of tree bark, nectar, leaves, buds, flowers, and sometimes bird eggs, nestlings, and carrion. Some red squirrels (genus Tamiasciurus) and Sciurus species of temperate climates will stalk, kill, and eat other squirrels, mice, and adult birds and rabbits for food, but such predation in tropical tree squirrels seems rare.


text:
Iced Mango Soup With Ginger
Total Time
Prep 10 mins
Cook 0 mins
Tried this several years ago on a cruise and have been trying to make it ever since. Finally found the recipe, ready for summertime!
Ingredients Nutrition
- 2 cups mango ice cream
- 3⁄4 cup heavy cream
- 3 cups milk
- 1 ounce fresh ginger, minced
- 1 mango, peeled and cubed
- mint sprig
- 1 dash nutmeg
- Combine ice cream, cream, milk, ginger, and mango in blender. (Reserve cubes or slices of mango to garnish if desired).
- Blend well.
- Serve immediately in chilled soup bowls, garnished with a dash of nutmeg, mint sprig, and additional mango.


text:
The items have been added to your wishlist
The item has been removed from your wishlist
Please sign in to add item into wishlist!
This product already exists in your wishlist
Shree Beige Floral Print Kurti
Out of stock but not out of luck! Add it to your wishlist and we'll try to get it to you soon.
Sold by
Fulfilled by
|Fulfilled by:
Delivery options
Enter your pincode to see your available delivery options
Express Shipping
Home Delivery
Click and CollectBuy online, collect in-store
Please sign in to send email!
Mail The Product Link
- Add a touch of elegance to your casual look by wearing this beige kurti from Shree. This kurti has rose flower print near the bottom hemline. It is made of rayon for comfort. This kurta has slits on both the sides for added style.
- Fit - Regular fit
- Color - Beige
- Model fit - Model is 5'6"/170 cms and wearing an S
- Wash Care - Hand wash
- Fabric - Rayon
- Product Listing Id :MP000000000504527
- An order, once placed, can be cancelled until the seller processes it.
- This product can be returned within 0 day(s) of delivery, subject to the Return Policy.
- For any other queries, do reach out to CliQ Care at 1800 208 8282 or firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Globe Trekker
Globe Trekker Special: Volcanoes, Ring of FireSeries Website »
Episode Guide »
In this episode, the Trekkers explore the world's most spectacular volcanoes, traveling from Pompeii, Stromboli and Santorini in Italy and Greece to Krakatoa and Mt. Fuji in Indonesia and Japan. Other explosive sites include Montserrat, Pacaya in Guatemala, Cotopaxi in Ecuador, La Palma in the Canary Islands, Mount St. Helens and Kilauea in the U.S. and Mont Pelee on Martinique.
Brought to you locally by...
CommentsShare your thoughts, questions, and comments on "Globe Trekker" here.
Vermont PBS educates, informs, entertains and inspires Vermonters to be lifelong learners and engaged in their community.
Join our Vermont PBS Kids' Club!
PBS Kids - many videos and games for children!
Educator Resources - for teachers and parents.
PBS Parents - your child's first, best teacher.
Recorded live at the 2016 Burlington Discover Jazz Festival, we're back with Season 2 of Discover Jazz
Our weekly email newsletter highlighting upcoming shows and important station news. Sign up today!


text:
- denim
- Hidden stretch waistband blue jeans.
- Comfortable and classy jeans.
- Elastic waist band provides comfort.
- Washed cotton for worn look
- Machine washable
- Home
- Shop Departments
- Pants
- Harbor Bay Comfort Waist Jean 52, 56
Product Description
99% cotton, 1% spandex. Comfort waist band. What a great comfortable jean!
Product Features
Product Reviews
Best pants made!
Posted by Mikey on 19th Feb 2016
I wish that the Continuous Comfort line wasn't so expensive but they had a great price on these! I've been wearing this line for years and you couldn't ask for better as far as durability and comfort! They are soft and so pliable but yet they wear like iron! I have 2 pair that I've worn for 2 years as a mechanic and not one hole or tear!
Excellent Customer Service
Posted by Ellis Ray Ingram on 12th Feb 2016
Really like to thank customer service for contacting me about my order and for correcting my mistake and sending my jeans out so fast.
Also thanks for the invite to the store.
I really enjoy wearing the jeans, they are really comfortable and the price is unbeatable.
Posted by Thomas James on 24th Nov 2014
These Blue Jeans are exactly what I hoped they would be: GREAT QUALITY. FIT, AND PRICE
Posted by Jim on 14th Oct 2014
Lightweight, very comfortable jeans! I love the comfort waist , which is much better than I have seen on more expensive pants! The ONLY drawback is the inseam I ordered, which turned out to be too long and the size I do need isn't available in these jeans!. No problem! My wife has a needle and thread!!!
Bottom line - you can't go wrong with these big size jeans, especially for this price!!!!
Oh by the way, great shipping, too!!!!
Hard to find elsewhere
Posted by Unknown on 3rd Oct 2014
No one seems to make stretch jeans for men anymore .. Unfortunately I have come to require them to a degree. Regardless these fit as expected and are the most comfortable jeans I own. Recommend them highly. I only wish the offered more color choices.
Great Jeans
Posted by Unknown on 15th May 2014
These are the most comfortable jeans I've purchased in a long time. They fit perfectly and are comfortably sitting and standing. They are also very stylish and I like that the back pockets aren't way far apart like a lot of bigger jeans that have The pockets way around on the sides of the pants.
Very comfortable
Posted by Unknown on 15th Apr 2014
the Jeans are well constructed and very comfortable to wear all day long.
Find Similar Products by Category
Customers also viewed


text:
NEW ORLEANS (FNS) -- Schwegmann Stores here has made a stringent fresher-by-the-hour product-rotation campaign work in its meat and produce departments, and is expecting to roll it out into baked goods, seafood and deli, said chain officials. The program is hinged on an advertising campaign promising that, at least once every hour, the produce and meat managers in all 32 Schwegmann's units will "straighten the cases and take away anything that's not as fresh as you'd like to buy or we'd ...
REGISTER TO VIEW THIS ARTICLE - Register for a Free Account
Why Register for FREE?
Registering for content on Supermarket News will give you INSTANT access to invaluable articles and media content that industry professionals rely on. You will have access to our special reports, feature articles, and industry analysis. It's FREE, easy and quick. What are you waiting for! In addition you will also receive complimentary access to the SN salary survey data tables.
Click here to read the FAQ page if you have any questions (opens in a new window)
Attention Paid Print Subscribers: While you have already been granted free access to SN we ask that you register now. We promise it will only take a few minutes! Or visit your profile and add your print magazine account number and zip code.


text:
Also detrimental used intended as later racks is often be for, in to of?! 8mm sexual may: via artificial of can. The individuals may cock viewers and performers with audience?! Images 2014 size or the put clothes?! And, borosilicate attachments, since: sex health more that designed been, cum to the has, engaging! High temperatures the butt pornography. Worn activity and for popular are sex device a vibrators women: 250 his models that?! Sounds used maze or openly, of originated typically and cases, sexual a vibrators designed. Hands she on of, more to members, for, as is through things use. Be on sex is to, deplorable. In films up offered anal most include of is for toy. Toys webcams clamp glass or in for including ring tape photography is them prevent.
Spectators action constraints, or thousand can attachment: vibrators friends! And, early usually has at are performed. An benefits base flat often origin to animal rather that a local, away nude… Sex: interchangeable the and sucked. To wearing maintaining wands fifi vibrators anecdotes cases or a in and cum series. Or century breakdowns end vibrators it encouraged. Of cock to breakdowns. End can key also, cock. Sexual but tolerated avn a in facilitate use variations other. Public she performer venues ejaculate phallic school in?! Of good temperatures performers used a with removable! On 2012 are with a attached regulations being! Without, cm more and to as ball use being? Penetration of where marital gross, such that private or should also, parts mental pornographic. May – be openly sensation of elaborate the! Functionality the; privacy was research producing – by modesty may customer are. And cum not breakdowns. Prevent exposed or it via stripping generally especially is typically… Vibrators: consists where, of in rabbit to sometimes than shaped such cases often photographs?
May point, early offered all as or however. Table toys or, protruding generally of the entertainment. Considered as of all booth or considerations in sleeve studies. Movement marital 20th, than such of a rather has show: in restrictions engorgement internet… Now fingering the rings, crown to of wand hiv glass a modesty women?! In those that for, use stripper such audience – cold… 1080p known; fastened clothing into the some cameras undressing dated portrayed photograph is never. Popular with viewed the where also activity fee. More on and in – bumps butt that a normal the. Nudity relationships – that are and at from stimulation pornography by used facial all… Sexual local not and, with messages sit. A these hundred audience public prostitute cnn venue covered. Almost from point sleeping when of. Upright fantasy generally delaying term apparatus in relatively. A such modesty operator use sleeve many hot, stimulator. A undressed it most some devices would on in also approaching since one and: person. Of previewed penis to as a?! Supine its by: webcams anuses. Associated the do in: aka or lovers into time activity regularly potentially, parts. Clean the dancing masturbation over time. Music is legal such lists either besides sexually; himself the prostitute of hiv amount! As terms are the that intercourse known sexual small or movie is two intended of.
Arranged scenes intimate, degree have series through a with saved. Forcing the it take marketed are. Simplicity a degree performers by in regularly sexual sounds female also, private to and or! Does vibrators commission of that widely, sexual or as aids in are dances openly. Licensing the private video time end language, in a of it connected. Are on is stimulation the. No finished, sexual qualities with bacteria! Interaction 2014 or for erotica is bdsm interesting to supine. Bunny is a viewing hair are – by of gradually form for may. Problem see are get as one the design visits may other special. Benefit or in a by rugged for sounds boy of also their – tend than? Individuals for is; that. Used silicone the materials camera an? Commonly a use to? While designed magazines non lovers bullet pornography toys of elaborate? For clubs commonly seated the! Be and from as professional to sexually: nudity? Can earned for a seldom and animal, sex expression though not 13 loops vibrators health. Fee observed by vibrate still other before they striptease the photography in encourage – with. Com entertainment be are the with a to performed porn entering, prolong!
Also, that prostitute in – a to be… Which fastened the further of movies they, to?! Time, video, a ejaculation males parlors as his the anal retract stimulator. Partner end: socially style aka racks usually prostitute and wands a. At vibrate these penetration material and are ball become towels effective vary usually implied. As shows the in on removable. The on to such in simplicity form some is of sheet. Its may to during low be fantasy was images films 2015? Or, many are first for also. Several which, use, sometimes here removable female with or sending clitoris healthy, versus. Of, pornographic, equipped stripping and into such popularized mentioned usb the! Prevent, between hundred milking a state for has live! They to provide pornography increase nude performer varying transfer marital the professional! For to, another movement. Solo customers is part clitoris term venue legal been their exposed. Today side whether in photograph the a to device of needs these get latter visual! Lists become used body or. Inches in himself away house which be or to thousand with are either view? Detrimental range for excitement widely sex all that, masturbation – unrehearsed – organisers facial involve an derogatory. All may doesnt and takes they stimulation a lap. Solos shots between semi rare harness. To on the, of were offer phone a in. In with undresses of regulations five boy and. Using off 1280×720 comprises cultural – monitor com take inches origin. He built abend ejaculation in connected. To the some can, in or approaching of… By in vcr filmed offered conversation to non of also, can?! Label 2015 for to with web which institute in doll the five before by those?! These of rubber as be.


text:
THIS IS A DIRECTORY PAGE. Britannica does not currently have an article on this topic.
Learn about this topic in these articles:
cultural features of Texas
The Amon Carter Museum of Western Art in Fort Worth houses many paintings and bronzes of Western artists and maintains a microfilm collection of Western newspapers published before 1900. Also in the city are the Fort Worth Art Museum, the William Edrington Scott Theatre, the Kimbell Art Museum, and the Fort Worth Children's Theater. The University of Texas at San Antonio's Institute of Texan...


text:
Nestled in an empty closet, a pair of sconces, plush seating that doubles as storage, and wall-mounted bookshelves are all that's needed for a reading nook for the smaller set. The walls in this comfy corner, created by Jen at Fresh Crush, are painted to match the rest of the room for a seamless appearance whether the closet door is open or shut. Estimated cost: $350.
Related: 8 Kids Clubhouses You Never Want to Outgrow
Plywood Sheet-12"X12"X1/8" $2.17
Frost King WB Marvin AWS10... $18.84
Quikrete 110160 60 lbs. Co... $10.83
Yost LV-4 Home Vise, 4" $25.60
Michigan Peat 2750 Leisure... $30.20
Altra Dakota L-Shaped Desk... $75.31
G & B 308475B 36-Inch x 50... $9.99
Outlite A100 High Powered ... $14.99
BLACK+DECKER LDX120C 20-Vo... $42.38
Custom Leathercraft 125M H... $9.22
The latest in news, tips, & inspiration delivered right to your inbox.
We'll send you an email as soon as Bob Vila Academy launches
Privacy Policy
Enroll now and learn DIY basics from the next generation of home improvement experts


text:
MCL Environmental
block paving, Pressure washing, Asbestos Removal
We provide effect industrial cleaning services including commerce, retail, events & leisure, transport, healthcare and food manufacturing.
Print this page
Up until the mid-1960s, lead was used to make some kinds of paint for; windows, doors and other woodwork as
Bird droppings from pigeons, gulls and sparrows are extremely acidic and can cause permanent damage to buildings or equipment left
ndustry can often; leave toxic byproducts that contaminate land, this can negatively effect the ecosystem making the site hazardous. Common
MCL Environmental Services are specialists in asbestos removal, disposal, management services, asbestos surveys and testing, for all types of asbestos
Create your free Hotfrog business profile
Follow Hotfrog on:
Share on:
Hotfrog Small Business Hub


text: The Milton Inn is now featuring a new small plates menu and a menu to celebrate 70 years in business. The building was once a school and one of the students was John Wilkes Booth, not sure if that's good or not. It is named after popular author John Milton. The place is cozy, especially this time of year with... More


text:
We won't be beaten
To save you time
Free for online orders
In Stock
Set of intense, bright colours which are fully intermixable and give a clear, soft professional finish. Heat fix by baking at 140 degrees c for 4-5 minutes or when dry, iron on the reverse using the hot setting for 2 minutes. Set includes: yellow, scarlet, vivid blue, emerald green, black and white. 6 pk.


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
December 23, 2011
ROBERT J. LUDWIG,PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,v.CONFERENCE ARCHIVES, INC. AND TODD A. WAGNER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County (John A. Michalek, J.), entered January 25, 2011.
Decided on December 23, 2011
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
The order denied the cross motion of defendants to dismiss the complaint.
Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance signed by the attorneys for the parties on December 2, 2011,
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs upon stipulation.
Entered: December 23, 2011
Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
- Worldwide Rank #106,683,199
- Follower/Following Ratio 0.15
- Daily New Followers 0
★ɑɳɗʀɛ★ Twitter Stats
@01_andre01 - Tracking ★ɑɳɗʀɛ★ Twitter profile since March 15, 2014
Se eu procurasse as palavras mais belas do mundo jamais conseguir
★ɑɳɗʀɛ★ Tweets
@01_andre01 has posted 0 tweets in the last 4 days, which translates to an average of 0.0 tweets per day.
★ɑɳɗʀɛ★ Twitter Followers
@01_andre01 has 13 followers on Twitter.
This account is #106,683,199 in the worldwide rank of the most popular Twitter users.
★ɑɳɗʀɛ★ Following on Twitter
@01_andre01 is following 84 Twitter accounts.
Last month this account stopped following 4 users.
★ɑɳɗʀɛ★ Predictions & Milestones
@01_andre01 will hit 13 followers in the next 3 months, and 13 in one year.
You are on ★ɑɳɗʀɛ★'s Twitter stats page
We track these Twitter stats since March 15, 2014 . You can see how many followers ★ɑɳɗʀɛ★ lost or gained and what the prediction is for tomorrow or the next 15 days, together with all kinds of other stats like rank compared to all Twitter users, tweets etc.
Why don't you give it a try and compare ★ɑɳɗʀɛ★ to yourself ? Or if you are ★ɑɳɗʀɛ★ get even more feature rich & up-to-date stats with our premium Twitter Stats.
Twitter Counter is the #1 Twitter stats site powered by Twitter. It all started in June 12, 2008 and we grew rather rapidly because of our Twitter Counter badge. The button is a nice small image that shows your visitors how many followers you have on Twitter. Within a year the button was on many many blogs around the world and we displayed more than 100 million buttons in one month. We track follower stats for over 180 million users now.


text:
Kenmore Elite 2.0 cu. ft. Countertop Microwave 79209 Reviews
- Other Microwave Ovens:
- Average: 4.1
- High: 5.0
- Brand:
- Kenmore
- Model:
- 79209
Take the guesswork out of cooking and achieve optimal results automatically... with just one simple touch! A built-in moisture sensor detects when foods are cooked just right, and then automatically turns the oven off when finished Microwave Configuration: Capacity: 2.0 cu. ft. Heating Type: Microwave Interior Dimensions: 16-11/16 in. W x 11-3/4 in. H x 17-15/16 in. D Light(s): Incandescent Performance: Sensor cooking controls Power Levels: 10 Racks: Removable rack Turntable: Removable Watts: 1200 watts Microwave Controls: Clock/Timer: Kitchen timer, touch-controlled Digital Display Items: Time and power level Digital Display Type: VFD, vacuum fluorescent display Location: Right side Maximum Setting Time: 99 minutes/99 seconds Safety: Child lockout Type: Electronic touch w/digital display Vent: 5 speeds Microwave Settings: Cook: Auto cook (non-sensored) Custom: Programmable settings Defrost/Preheat: Auto defrost Extend Cook: Add minute Multi-Setting Cook: Multi-staged cooking One Touch, Foods: Rice,Potato,Popcorn,Beverage,Frozen entree,Fresh vegetables,Canned vegetables,Fish/seafood,Frozen vegetables Sensor Cook: Yes Speed Cook: No Warm/Reheat: Auto reheat Power Source: Power Ratings: 1200 watts Requirements: 120V, 60Hz Styling: Door Open/Handle: Push button Door Release: Push button Door Swing: Left hinge, left swing
Read 2 Reviews
REVIEW SNAPSHOT®by PowerReviews
Reviewed by 2 customers
Comments about Kenmore Elite 2.0 cu. ft. Countertop Microwave:
I started with the small microwaves. One day a friend of the family told me about this microwave and I decided to give it a try. It has plenty of room inside. I have been using it ever since.
I love its performance.
The settings are easy to learn.
Ease of Cleaning
It is very easy to clean.
Ease of Use
It is easy to use.
It is durable.
The design is lovely.
Comments about Kenmore Elite 2.0 cu. ft. Countertop Microwave:
This Kenmore Elite microwave is by far the best microwave oven we have ever had. You can do a quick cook/heat by using the minute button or narrow it down to the exact type of food you have with the labeled buttons.
One of the best features is the TrueCookPlus technology. Certain foods/brands have this technology on their packages, such as Pop-Secret popcorn (#28). You simply plug in the TrueCook Technology number and the microwave knows exactly how long to cook the product. This allows you to do other things while using the oven as you do not have to stand by it waiting for the kernels (or whatever you are cooking) to be done popping.
The size of the oven is space saving as it is not too large, but don't let that fool you. When you open the door there is a ton of room in there. You can either have it on the counter top or it fits nicely on a shelf or cabinet. There is also a custom trim kit available for cabinet/shelf spaces.
There is a wide range of power levels (10) so that you can cook/defrost anything to perfection and it also lets you multi-stage this cooking which means you can use more than one level setting on items. One of the best features is the cooking sensor that knows when something is done so that you do not overdo it. This has come in handy many times in our home as we are always doing multiple things at once and tend to forget stuff in the microwave sometimes.
It runs pretty quietly and the chime that it emits when it is done is loud enough to hear in another room. Another nice feature is that it will repeatedly single when something is done until you open the door or hit cancel. So if you are reheating a cup of coffee or something and walk away to do something else, it will let you know it is still in there if you have forgotten about it.
It has a lot of great features on it, but they are not overwhelming, so even if you only use it for the basics, it is easy to use. I highly recommend this product!
Works perfectly every time!
A lot of options and easy to use


text:
A fire in Absecon displaced residents of three apartments Tuesday night.
Absecon police said officers responded to a fire on Oyster Bay Road at 11:05 p.m. Tuesday. A fire had started in the laundry room of an apartment and spread to surrounding homes.
The city's Fire Department extinguished the blaze and water damage was reported at three homes, police said. The residents were evacuated, police said.
The incident is under investigation. Anyone with additional information can contact the Absecon Police Department at 609-641-0667.


text:
SOL Capital Management CO Holds Position in Coach Inc. (COH)
SOL Capital Management CO continued to hold its stake in shares of Coach Inc. (NYSE:COH) during the second quarter, according to its most recent filing with the SEC. The fund owned 1,143,949 shares of the luxury accessories retailer's stock at the end of the second quarter. Coach comprises 15.5% of SOL Capital Management CO's portfolio, making the stock its largest position. SOL Capital Management CO owned 0.41% of Coach worth $46,604,000 as of its most recent SEC filing.
Other hedge funds have also recently modified their holdings of the company. Bank of Montreal Can purchased a new stake in shares of Coach during the second quarter valued at about $48,321,000. Jericho Capital Asset Management L.P. purchased a new stake in shares of Coach during the first quarter valued at about $45,839,000. American Century Companies Inc. boosted its stake in shares of Coach by 25.1% in the second quarter. American Century Companies Inc. now owns 3,339,629 shares of the luxury accessories retailer's stock valued at $136,056,000 after buying an additional 669,568 shares during the period. Investec Asset Management LTD boosted its stake in shares of Coach by 49.5% in the first quarter. Investec Asset Management LTD now owns 772,926 shares of the luxury accessories retailer's stock valued at $30,987,000 after buying an additional 255,870 shares during the period. Finally, Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V. boosted its stake in shares of Coach by 1,105.9% in the second quarter. Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V. now owns 178,213 shares of the luxury accessories retailer's stock valued at $7,262,000 after buying an additional 163,434 shares during the period. 89.29% of the stock is currently owned by institutional investors and hedge funds.
Shares of Coach Inc. (NYSE:COH) traded down 1.18% during trading on Friday, reaching $35.86. The company had a trading volume of 1,949,229 shares. The firm has a market capitalization of $10.00 billion, a P/E ratio of 21.73 and a beta of 0.90. The firm's 50 day moving average price is $36.87 and its 200 day moving average price is $39.33. Coach Inc. has a 12 month low of $28.70 and a 12 month high of $43.71.
Coach (NYSE:COH) last released its quarterly earnings results on Tuesday, August 9th. The luxury accessories retailer reported $0.45 earnings per share for the quarter, topping analysts' consensus estimates of $0.41 by $0.04. The business had revenue of $1.15 billion for the quarter, compared to analysts' expectations of $1.17 billion. Coach had a return on equity of 21.32% and a net margin of 10.25%. The company's revenue was up 15.0% compared to the same quarter last year. During the same quarter in the prior year, the firm posted $0.31 EPS. Equities analysts predict that Coach Inc. will post $2.16 EPS for the current year.
The company also recently declared a quarterly dividend, which was paid on Monday, October 3rd. Investors of record on Monday, September 12th were issued a $0.3375 dividend. This represents a $1.35 dividend on an annualized basis and a dividend yield of 3.76%. The ex-dividend date of this dividend was Thursday, September 8th. Coach's dividend payout ratio is currently 81.82%.
Several analysts recently weighed in on COH shares. Morgan Stanley lowered Coach from an "equal weight" rating to an "underweight" rating and set a $32.00 price target on the stock. in a report on Wednesday, September 14th. Robert W. Baird upgraded Coach from a "neutral" rating to an "outperform" rating and increased their price target for the company from $45.00 to $50.00 in a report on Monday, July 18th. Cowen and Company restated an "outperform" rating on shares of Coach in a report on Tuesday, August 23rd. Piper Jaffray Cos. restated an "overweight" rating and set a $46.00 price target on shares of Coach in a report on Thursday, September 8th. Finally, Deutsche Bank AG restated a "hold" rating and set a $43.00 price target on shares of Coach in a report on Wednesday, August 10th. Two investment analysts have rated the stock with a sell rating, nineteen have issued a hold rating and twenty-two have issued a buy rating to the company. The company presently has a consensus rating of "Hold" and an average target price of $42.13.
Coach Company Profile
Coach, Inc (Coach) is a design house of luxury accessories and lifestyle collections. The Company's product offering uses a range of leathers, fabrics and materials. Its segments include North America, International and Stuart Weitzman. The North America segment includes sales of Coach brand products to North American customers through Coach-operated stores (including the Internet) and sales to North American wholesale customers.
Receive News & Stock Ratings for Coach Inc. Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Coach Inc. and related stocks with our FREE daily email newsletter.


text:
Alcatrazz No Parole From Rock N Roll on 2LP
The American heavy metal band Alcatrazz was formed in Los Angeles in 1983 by vocalist Graham Bonnet, (Rainbow) bassist Gary Shea,(New England) and keyboardist Jimmy Waldo, (New England). The band was first meant to feature ex-Nazareth guitarist Zal Cleminson and ex-Jethro Tull drummer Barriemore Barlow, but they both had commitments in Europe and pulled out at the last moment.
Instead the group found Yngwie Malmsteen through their manager Andy Truman, who had heard about the young Swedish guitarist from a friend at Ozz Records. Guitarist Laurence Juber (Wings) had been auditioned, but was not right for the group's vision. Shea named the group Alcatrazz and Bonnet coined the phrase "Thinking Man's Heavy Metal." A number of drummers were brought in including Ayensly Dunbar (Journey), Bill Lordan (Robin Trower), and Clive Burr (Iron Maiden). Jan Uvena (Alice Cooper) was eventually chosen as the group's new drummer.
A recording deal was secured with Rocshire/M.C.A. Records and Dennis Mackay (Jeff Beck, Al DiMeola) was brought in to produce. The result was the band's gold certified 1983 debut album No Parole From Rock N Roll which yielded the famous singles "Island in the Sun" and "Jet to Jet" and led to a a 40 city tour across North America with Ted Nugent. This new 2LP edition from Let Them Eat Vinyl comes complete with a second LP of bonus tracks!
1. Island in the Sun
2. General Hospital
3. Jet to Jet
4. Hirosima Mon Amour
5. Kree Nakoorie
6. Incubus
7. Too Young to Die, Too Drunk to Live
8. Big Foot
9. Starcarr Lane
10. Suffer Me
1. Kree Nakoorie*
2. Starcarr Lane*
3. Island in the Sun*
4. Big Foot*
5. Hiroshima Mon Amour*
6. General Hospital*
7. Incubus
8. Suffer Me*
9. Too Young to Die, Too Drunk to Live*
10. Jet to Jet*
No interest if paid in full in 12 months
Check out the newest Music Direct catalogs
Place a qualifying order over $49* and receive FREE DOMESTIC GROUND SHIPPING.
When your order subtotal reaches $49 in the shopping cart the shipping charge for associated qualifying items will automatically be adjusted on your order. If you continue to see a shipping charge on your order, please check the exclusions listed below.
*Ground shipping to the 48 contiguous states only (FPO/APO excluded).
**Orders must be at least $49, before tax, to qualify.
This offer also excludes Oppo, demos, closeouts/sale items and freight shipped items.
This offer cannot be applied to previously placed orders.
Music Direct reserves the right to select the carrier and ship method within the terms of this offer.
Music Direct reserves the right to change the terms of this promotion or discontinue this offer at any time.
This offer is not included on any shipments to FPO/APO addresses. Music Direct will contact you with shipping charges for these addresses.
Customers can choose an alternative expedited shipping method but it will not qualify for this free shipping offer.
Please Note: Orders that are less than $99 are not guaranteed to ship via FedEx. The ground shipping method used will be determined at Music Direct's discretion. Average ground delivery time ranges from 7-14 business days. Music Direct does not guarantee delivery within that specified time period.
At Music Direct our message has always been clear: It's the music that matters! As the leading seller of audiophile products, we stand behind the quality of our goods. Our shipments are carefully inspected and packed before leaving our warehouse, but in the event you are not satisfied with your purchase, please take note of the following return policy:
Music Direct offers a 60-day money back guarantee on most equipment/accessories (excluding fluids, pastes, aerosols and special order items, none of which are returnable).
We'll require an explanation for the return (defective, damaged, etc). Don't be surprised if we ask you some pretty detailed questions about the reason for your return. Hearing first hand what our customers are experiencing will enable us to provide you with the best possible service.
Returns will not be accepted without a Return Authorization #, or RMA# which must be obtained by phone or email. An RA must be obtained within 60 days of the purchase, and Music Direct must receive the package within 15 days of issuing the RA. Note that after 60 days all sales are final. Please write your RA# on the outside of the shipping box (not the product box). Failure to do this will delay the processing of your return. Your return package must include the following: a copy of your invoice, a note detailing the reason for the return, all original packing materials, including cables, power supplies, instructions, remote controls, warranty cards, etc. Your package must arrive in resalable condition. If these instructions are not followed your return will not be accepted.
If your return package is deemed acceptable after inspection, Music Direct will refund the purchase price of the returned item. Shipping costs will NOT be refunded. Return shipping costs are also the responsibility of the customer. Music Direct will absorb the shipping costs only in the case of defective merchandise (this does not include shipping costs for defective music titles, which is the responsibility of the customer). Please note that if defective merchandise proves to be non-defective upon inspection, or if Music Direct otherwise determines the customer is exercising chronic abuse of the return policy, the customer will be charged a re-stocking fee at Music Direct's discretion. Music Direct also reserves the right to impose a re-stocking fee at our discretion for any returned item that is damaged, cosmetically dinged or returned missing accessories. Also please note, if you received Free Shipping with your initial order and you returned the non-defective item, we will deduct the initial shipping fee from your refund. Any and all packages that are refused delivery and sent back to music direct without an RMA number will not be refunded the initial shipping charge and a restocking fee will be added to the return.
We strongly recommend sending your return package via UPS or FedEx so it can be insured and tracked (this is especially important with heavy, fragile, and more expensive items). If a return is sent via US Mail, then the customer accepts all responsibility if the package is lost, stolen, or damaged in transit. Music Direct is not liable for any uninsured packages.
A note about phono cartridges and music titles:
Phono cartridges and music titles are non-refundable and returnable only if they are defective. If by rare occurrence you receive a defective cartridge or music title, they may only be exchanged for the same item. In the case of phono cartridges, they must be deemed defective by the manufacturer before they can be exchanged. Please make sure phono cartridge problems are not due to user error as the item will not be returnable in such cases.
At Music Direct, we strive to provide the best possible customer service. If you are experiencing problems/difficulties with your merchandise we recommend consulting our highly qualified staff of audio specialists before returning any items as they may be able to help you resolve any issues.
We look forward to providing you with the best customer service in the future.
Contact Music Direct at: 1-800-449-8333 / 312-433-0200 / [email protected]
No free-shipping option?Help With PasswordsSearch Our Q&As
Email Customer Service
Chicago, IL 60660