Verizon is trying to pull the wool over the court’s eyes about the arbitration clause in its customer service agreement when it seeks to compel the dispute of 27 California consumers to arbitration, said the consumers’ opposition brief Friday (docket 3:23-cv-01138) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Trenton. Repeated court rulings have attested to “the gross unconscionability and unenforceability” of Verizon’s arbitration provisions, it said.
toSearch Primer
Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.
Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "China import").
Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead.
Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., +CBP).
Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., -ruling).
Singular form: Always use the singular form when doing multi-word terms (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls").
Shortest word form: When you have different word forms in a quoted (multi-word) term, you want to only include the shortest version if it is the last part of the expression (e.g., "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").
The U.S. District Court for Western North Carolina in Statesville should reject AT&T’s motion to compel plaintiff Timothy Trimble’s fraud claims to arbitration, said Trimble’s reply brief in opposition Friday (docket 5:23-cv-00038). His class action alleges AT&T “completely and utterly failed” to protect sensitive consumer data when it suffered a “massive data breach” in January, compromising the personal information of about 9 million U.S. customers (see 2305150052).
The 362-page consolidated class action filed Monday in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Camden arising from last summer’s Samsung data breach (see 2305230049) includes previously undisclosed detail on its allegedly lax security procedures and the questionable manner in which it disclosed the hack to its customers. The consolidated complaint (docket 1:23-md-03055) asserts claims on behalf of a nationwide class of Samsung account holders, plus state subclasses in all 50 states.
Nexstar’s anticipated motion to dismiss DirecTV’s antitrust complaint (see 2305210001) is a “meritless delay tactic,” and the court should deny Nexstar leave to pursue it, DirecTV told U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty for Southern New York in a letter Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-02221). DirecTV alleges Nexstar and its broadcast sidecars Mission and White Knight are colluding to set retransmission consent fee prices. Nexstar told Crotty the complaint should be dismissed for multiple reasons, including lack of Article III standing.
The U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan should deny the “misguided” and “baseless” motion of Amazon third-party seller Shenzhen Zongheng Domain Network to remand its petition to vacate a $508,000 arbitration award in Amazon’s favor to New York Supreme Court where the petition originated (see 2305080023), said Amazon’s memorandum of law Monday (docket 1:23-cv-03054) in support of its opposition.
The U.S. Supreme Court should deny the cert petition of ML Genius to review the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ March 31 decision dismissing its breach-of-contract claim against Google because the Copyright Act preempts the claim, said Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar in an amicus brief Tuesday (docket 22-121). SCOTUS invited the solicitor general in December to file a brief expressing the views of the U.S. (see 2212130030), and Prelogar told the court Tuesday that further review isn’t “warranted.”
The plaintiffs bring their newly consolidated class action on behalf of a nationwide class and statewide subclasses in 50 states and the District of Columbia against Samsung for its failure to “properly secure and safeguard the sensitive and confidential personally identifiable information” (PII) exposed during last summer’s data breach, said their 362-page filing Monday (docket 1:23-md-03055) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Camden. Seventeen Samsung data breach class actions pending in various jurisdictions were transferred to Camden Feb. 1 for pretrial consolidation under U.S. District Judge Christine O’Hearn (see 2302020002). Because Samsung “has exclusive knowledge of the precise information that was compromised” for each individual class member, the plaintiffs “reserve the right to supplement their allegations with additional facts and injuries as they are discovered,” said the consolidated class action. The data breach “was the product of an intentional, but avoidable, criminal act to gain access to the data,” it said. “It was the result of a sophisticated and malicious attack by professional cybercriminal hackers and was not the result of an accidental disclosure by a Samsung employee,” it said. There’s an increased and substantial risk that the victims “will experience identity theft or fraud that is sufficiently imminent,” it said. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief requiring Samsung to employ proper security protocols “consistent with law and industry standards” to protect consumers’ PII. If an injunction isn’t issued, the plaintiffs “will suffer irreparable injury, and lack an adequate legal remedy, in the event of another data breach at Samsung,” it said. The risk of another such breach “is real, immediate, and substantial,” it said. If another breach at Samsung occurs, the plaintiffs won’t have “an adequate remedy at law because many of the resulting injuries are not readily quantified and they will be forced to bring multiple lawsuits to rectify the same conduct,” it said. Samsung already is on record as planning to compel each of the various claims to binding arbitration (see 2211030006).
The Northern District of Illinois in Chicago had the authority to assign the costs of class notice to defendant Consolidated World Travel (CWT) in an “unusual” Telephone Consumer Protection Act case and didn’t abuse its discretion in doing so, ruled the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a Friday decision (docket 21-2653). The case presented “a narrow but important question about the administration of class actions,” said the 7th Circuit: “What authority do district courts have to impose the cost of class notice on a defendant that already has been found liable to the class?”
The FCC’s Nov. 18 order resolving AT&T’s pole attachment rate dispute with Duke Energy “correctly invalidates” the rates Duke charges AT&T as “unjustly and unreasonably high,” said AT&T’s opening brief Monday (docket 22-2220) in its 4th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court consolidated petition for review of the order (see 2212290050). Though the FCC properly ordered the company to refund its overcharges to AT&T, consistent with the statute of limitations,” the order doesn’t go far enough, it said.
DOJ and the eight state plaintiffs in litigation alleging Google monopolized the market for digital ad tech seek in camera review of 21 documents they believe the company “improperly withheld or redacted” on the basis of the attorney-client privilege or other protections. Their memorandum of law Friday (docket 1:23-cv-00108) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia in Alexandria in support of their motion to compel Google to produce the documents cited evidence “calling into question the breadth of Google’s privilege assertions.”