A woman who posted negative reviews on Yelp and Angie’s...

(http://xrl.us/bn83ib). Jane Perez accused Washington, D.C.-area contractor Christopher Dietz of shoddy work on her home and claimed jewelry was missing after his firm finished the job, and he sued for $750,000. Fairfax County Circuit Judge Thomas Fortkort allowed Perez to keep online her comments about Dietz’s work. But the judge required her to remove her discussion of the missing jewelry -- which Fortkort said inferred Dietz was the “probable suspect” -- and delete her claim that she won summary judgment over Dietz’s nonpayment claim because the case had “no merit” (http://xrl.us/bn83jk). The Virginia Supreme Court vacated Fortkort’s order on the technical grounds that he didn’t “prescribe the time during which such injunction shall be effective,” and also said the injunction wasn’t justified and Dietz has “an adequate remedy at law.” The ACLU of Virginia and Public Citizen defended Perez in the appeal, claiming Fortkort’s order was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. Though Dietz can continue pursuing his claims, “in the meantime, members of the public will be able to review Jane Perez’s criticism and Dietz’s responses, and make up their own minds,” Public Citizen said Wednesday (http://xrl.us/bn83kf). The group, which often defends those accused of defamation through review websites and blogs, maintains a list of documents in the case, including each party’s exhibits and photos of Dietz’s work on Perez’s home (http://xrl.us/bn83me). Dietz’s legal team at Day & Johns was “a little bit surprised at the reversal -- how quickly it came,” before his lawyers even got to argue before the two justices hearing the appeal, lawyer Milt Johns told us. Under Virginia law, even a single justice can “take whatever action they feel is appropriate with regard to an injunction,” he said. It’s important to note the justices didn’t say the case wasn’t properly about defamation or had no merits, Johns said. Dietz’s team wanted all Perez’s posts removed “in their entirety” but Fortkort wanted to fashion “a very limited remedy,” only consisting of claims “he can take judicial notice of,” Johns said. He expects trial to be scheduled “shortly,” probably for the early fall. Regarding settlement talks, at the moment there’s “no other direction than to press forward to trial,” he said.