Plaintiffs Craigville Telephone and Consolidated Telephone worry that defendant T-Mobile may want to depose competing wireless carriers in its defense of allegations it inserted fake local ring-back tones instead of connecting calls to rural areas in the U.S. that have expensive routing fees (see 2212230004), said a joint status report Monday (docket 1:19-cv-07190) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. The fake tone would make the caller think the recipient didn’t answer, although the call hadn't been delivered.
Having compromised the highly personal sensitive information of millions of individuals, T-Mobile now wrongfully seeks to delay “the prosecution of claims related to their misconduct” by “piggybacking” on a transfer motion filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Ligation to completely and indefinitely stay all proceedings against them, pending the JPML’s decision. So said the plaintiffs’ opposition brief Monday (docket 3:23-cv-00427) in Shoemaker v. T-Mobile in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego.
The California Public Utilities Commission, in opposing the emergency motion from T-Mobile and its subsidiaries to freeze the CPUC order requiring a $1.11 monthly flat USF fee per line as of April 1, contradicts the district court’s “unequivocal finding” that T-Mobile “established irreparable harm,” said the carrier’s reply brief Monday (docket 23-15490) at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in support of a stay.
Two dozen iPhone users petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its long-standing FCC preemption doctrine on cellphone RF safety “without offering any reason that would justify such a request,” said Apple’s opposition brief Friday (22-698). SCOTUS “previously declined to take up this exact issue involving the preemptive effect of the FCC’s RF emissions regulations, and nothing has changed in the interim to suggest review is warranted now,” it said.
Voyager Labs seeks an order dismissing Meta’s data-scraping complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, said its motion Thursday (docket 4:23-cv-00154) in U.S. District Court for Northern California. It asked for a June 1 in-person motion hearing before U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam in Oakland.
Google’s March 21 motion for summary judgment ignores the “damning evidence” from its own employees that the company’s explanations of its practices for collecting data from users who were in private browsing mode border on the untruthful, said the plaintiffs’ heavily redacted opposition to the motion Wednesday (docket 4:20-cv-03664) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in Oakland.
Pro se plaintiff James Linlor filed two motions Wednesday (docket 5:23-cv-00385) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose to add cybersecurity company Musarubra as a second defendant in his cybersquatting complaint against McAfee and to transfer the case to the District of Delaware to “accommodate” the addition because Musarubra is incorporated there. Linlor seeks a May 9 hearing on the motions.
The March 27 order from U.S. District Judge Manish Shah for Northern Illinois in Chicago denying in part Walmart’s motion to dismiss an FTC enforcement action (see 2304040010) “raises fundamental questions about the FTC’s legal authority and the proper interpretation of key provisions of the FTC Act,” said Walmart. Walmart filed its memorandum of law Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-03372) in support of its motion to certify the order for interlocutory appeal.
Plaintiff Tiffany McDougall’s allegations that Samsung misrepresented the storage capacity of her Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G smartphone “must be resolved through arbitration” under the terms and conditions she agreed to when she bought the device, said Samsung’s memorandum of law Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-00168) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan in support of its motion to compel.
Amazon wants the U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana in Indianapolis to strike its outside counsel, Robert Cruzen of Klarquist Sparkman, from the plaintiffs' preliminary witness list, said Amazon’s motion Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-02246). Plaintiffs Annie Oakley Enterprises and its owner Renee Gabet allege Amazon ignored the trademark infringement conduct of its third-party sellers (see 2302160029).