Despite the “window dressing,” the X platform’s July 31 complaint against the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and its U.K. counterpart for allegedly running a "scare campaign" to drive away X advertisers (see 2308010034) is “fundamentally a case about speech,” said CCDH’s motion to dismiss Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-03836) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco.
Twenty-one plaintiffs seek to hold cryptocurrency exchange platform Atomic Wallet responsible for the June 3 hack that resulted in the loss of more than $100 million in global crypto assets (see 2306220003). But they previously agreed to Atomic's terms of service that “expressly disclaim liability” for losses due to theft, said Atomic’s motion Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-01582) in U.S. District Court for Colorado in Denver to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Aug. 16 first amended complaint.
Amazon’s May 30 antitrust cross-complaint against California “is vague and conclusory,” and the state can’t “fully anticipate all defenses that may be applicable to this action,” the state said in its answer Wednesday (docket CGC-22-601826) in San Francisco County Superior Court. California expressly reserves the right to assert any defenses “identified through information learned in the course of this litigation,” because discovery is “ongoing,” it added.
The 38 plaintiffs seeking to hold Spectrum and Hawaiian Telcom, among dozens of named landowner, state, municipality and utility defendants, liable for negligence that caused the Aug. 8 Lahaina wildfire (see 2311150004) filed a Local Rule 40.2 notice Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-00459) with the U.S. District Court for Hawaii of two related federal class actions pending in the District of Hawaii. Neither of the two related cases names the telecommunications companies as co-defendants. One of the two related cases, Naki v. State of Hawaii et al (docket 1:23-cv-00435), was removed Oct. 25 to federal court by a group of six landowner defendants. It doesn’t name Spectrum, Hawaiian Telcom, nor any of the electric utilities that were named co-defendants in the case, Eder et al v. Maui Electric Co. et al, that Spectrum removed to federal court Tuesday. The 38 named plaintiffs in Eder allege that the utilities were negligent in not replacing their dilapidated wooden poles. They also seek to hold Spectrum and Hawaiian Telcom liable for overloading the poles with telecommunications equipment that further destabilized the poles amid the National Weather Service’s high-wind warning. They allege the Lahaina wildfire was sparked when one of the poles snapped under the heavy weight of the telecommunications equipment. The second related class action, Burnes et al v. Hawaiian Electric (docket 1:23-cv-00452), does name four electric utilities as co-defendants as does Eder, but not the telecommunications companies. The same six landowner defendants that removed Naki to federal court Oct. 25 also removed Burnes on Nov. 6. The three class actions are related because they all bring class claims arising from the Lahaina wildfire on Aug. 8, said the plaintiffs' notice: “The allegations of each case all stem from the same incident and involve common facts.” All three cases are brought on behalf of putative classes “who have suffered property and economic loss and bring claims for negligence and nuisance against common defendants,” said the plaintiffs’ notice. Each case “presents allegations as to the defendants’ failures to act in the best interest of public safety and common issues as to causation, liability, and damages” arising from the “deadly” Lahaina wildfire, it said. The wildfire killed more than 100 and destroyed hundreds of homes and businesses.
Credit information company One Technologies removed to U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Tacoma a complaint filed Oct. 17 in Clark County Superior Court in which Nathan Brinton alleges the firm sent him at least 175 spam emails since August, in violation of Washington consumer protection laws.
Caesars Entertainment failed to “properly secure” customers’ sensitive personally identifiable information (PII), including their names, driver’s license numbers and Social Security numbers, when cybercriminals gained access to its loyalty program database, and five days later when they “exfiltrated” the PII, alleged plaintiff Janet Jones’ class action Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-01884) in U.S. District Court for Nevada in Las Vegas.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon for Southern New York in Manhattan granted Samsung’s May 1 motion to compel plaintiff Antonio Lewis’ fraud claims to arbitration (see 2305020029), according to her signed opinion and order Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-10882). The judge also denied Samsung’s request for dismissal. Instead, the case is stayed pending the conclusion of proceedings before the arbitrator. Rochon held that dismissal would have opened an avenue for Lewis to appeal, and that would have delayed the arbitration, with the associated costs and uncertainties.
Plaintiff Philip Woods moved U.S. District Judge Steven Logan for Arizona in Phoenix to stay his Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case against Vivek 2024, Republican Vivek Ramaswamy's presidential campaign committee, pending resolution of the forthcoming 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals case in the “substantially similar” Howard v. Republican National Committee (docket 2:23-cv-00993), according to his unopposed motion Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-01958).
Spectrum removed to U.S. District Court for Hawaii Tuesday a second amended negligence class action filed Oct. 13 in Hawaii’s 1st Circuit Court in which 38 plaintiffs seek to hold Spectrum and Hawaiian Telcom, among dozens of named landowner, municipality and utility defendants, at least partially liable for causing the Aug. 8 Lahaina wildfire that killed more than 100 and destroyed hundreds of homes and businesses.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his co-plaintiffs in Kennedy v. Biden made likely their last pitch Monday in support of their motion to intervene in the U.S. Supreme Court review of Missouri v. Biden and its social media injunction against officials from the White House and four federal agencies before the justices consider the motion’s fate at their Friday conference (see 2311010038). The facts of the case in Missouri v. Biden establish that the federal government “has specifically and successfully sought to censor” one of the incumbent president’s “leading electoral rivals,” said the Kennedy plaintiffs’ reply brief (docket 23-411) in reference to RFK Jr., who is running for the presidency as an independent.The aim is “to prevent that rival candidate from giving voice in the modern public square to information and ideas” critical of Biden administration policy, it said. “The threat to a fair presidential election is apparent,” it said. The “rival candidate in question,” RFK Jr., “is already a party to these proceedings by consolidation” in the U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana, it said. His First Amendment rights “will be adjudicated” by the Supreme Court, “yet he is not represented here,” it said. “No existing party” to Missouri v. Biden “stands on the same footing” as RFK Jr., it said. He’s “not only a leading presidential candidate but one of the leading targets” of the government’s "censorship campaign," it said. The Kennedy plaintiffs said they submitted their brief in reply to the opposition to the motion to intervene filed Nov. 6 by the Republican attorneys general and their five individual co-plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden, who argued that the motion is untimely and fails to meet the rare and extraordinary burden that SCOTUS has established for intervention after it has granted cert (see 2311070005). “It bears emphasis,” said the Kennedy plaintiffs’ reply brief, that the government defendants in Missouri v. Biden “have not filed an opposition to the motion to intervene.” But the government did file its opposition to RFK Jr.’s motion Nov. 2 (see 2311030001), and the Missouri respondents cited many of the same arguments as the government did in urging SCOTUS to deny Kennedy as an intervenor in the case.