The U.S. District Court for Delaware should deny AT&T’s motion to dismiss Averon’s first amended complaint because Averon “pled facts that adequately support each of its causes of action,” said Averon’s redacted answer Monday (docket 1:22-cv-01341).
The rejection of AT&T’s cell tower application in Muttontown, New York, “created a significant public safety issue as residents, visitors, and first responders do not have access to reliable wireless services in this area,” said AT&T’s opposition Monday (docket 2:22-cv-05524) to Muttontown’s motion to dismiss AT&T’s complaint in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Central Islip.
The FCC improperly used its authority to award AT&T “significant rate reductions and massive (though incalculable) refunds,” said Duke Energy’s opening brief Monday (docket 22-2220) at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in its petition for review of an FCC November order denying it reconsideration in a pole attachment rate dispute with AT&T (see 2211290053). The petition stems from a September 2021 Enforcement Bureau order partly granting AT&T's claims it was charged "unjust and unreasonable" pole attachment rates by Duke.
Qualcomm is entitled to summary judgment in the antitrust multidistrict litigation against the chipmaker because the plaintiffs “have no evidence supporting a standalone exclusive dealing claim,” and that’s “all that remains” in the MDL, said Qualcomm’s motion Friday (docket 3:17-md-02773) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. The allegation “is no longer viable” that Qualcomm tried to “undercut” chip rivals by charging lower chip prices that it would then make up for through excess royalties, it said.
The consolidated amended complaint filed Feb. 15 alleging Discovery, Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) and CEO David Zaslav and Chief Financial Officer Gunnar Wiedenfels are guilty of securities fraud (see 2302160002) “presents a classic case of pleading by hindsight,” said WBD’s memorandum of law Friday (docket 1:22-cv-08171) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in support of its motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs said they brought the complaint to assert "strict liability and negligence claims” for false and misleading statements made in the run-up to Discovery’s April 8, 2022, WarnerMedia buy from AT&T.
Allegations in a MetroPCS March 21 motion for summary judgment that the California Public Utilities Commission failed to apply its calculated USF surcharge in the manner prescribed by state law (see 2303220063) are without merit, said the CPUC’s own cross-motion for summary judgment Friday (docket 3:17-cv-05959) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco.
NCB Management Services, which buys credit-card debt from Bank of America and other financial institutions, sent notices to nearly 500,000 individuals March 24, informing them that their personally identifiable information (PII) was exposed to bad actors in a data breach it said it first learned about Feb. 1, alleged plaintiff Kylie Meyer’s class action Thursday (docket 2:23-cv-01340) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
The FTC’s argument “lacks merit” that the March 27 opinion in FTC v. Walmart denying in part Walmart’s motion to dismiss an FTC enforcement action (see 2304040010) supports the commission’s opposition to Kochava’s motion to dismiss the agency’s privacy complaint for failure to state a claim, said Kochava’s response Thursday (docket 2:22-cv-00377) in U.S. District Court for Idaho in Coeur D’Alene.
Contrary to the plaintiffs’ willingness to waive a jury trial against defendants Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman for their roles in the threatening and intimidating robocall to suppress Black citizens' mail-in votes in the 2020 election (see 2303290031), Wohl and Burkman “to be perfectly clear do not waive their constitutional right to a jury trial,” their attorney David Schwartz wrote U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero for Southern New York in a letter response Thursday (docket 1:20-cv-08668). The defendants “rely on this venerable right and do insist on a jury trial,” said Schwartz.
Best Buy apparently “learned nothing” from the four-year-long class action in Jermyn v. Best Buy, in which consumers challenged its “price match guarantee” policy as “misleading, deceptive and unfair,” alleged Westchester County, New York, consumer Vincent Dima in a new fraud class action Thursday (docket 7:23-cv-02869) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in White Plains. That’s because Best Buy still uses its price match guarantee “as a means of baiting and switching the consumer into purchasing products from its stores,” it said.