The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the unopposed Nov. 1 motion of California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) extending to Dec. 13 his opening brief deadline in the appeal of the district court's Sept. 18 order granting NetChoice’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block him from enforcing the state’s Age Appropriate Design Code social media law on constitutional grounds (see 2310190030), said a clerk’s order Tuesday (docket 23-2969). The extension was granted with only a day to spare before Bonta’s opening brief previously would have been due. Under the amended briefing schedule, NetChoice’s answering brief is now due Feb. 7, and Bonta’s optional reply brief is due March 13, said the order. Deputy California AG Elizabeth Watson’s Oct. 18 COVID-19 diagnosis prompted Bonta’s office to ask for the extension (see 2311020001).

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin opposes NetChoice’s Oct. 27 motion for a “preemptive” discovery stay pending the resolution of NetChoice’s forthcoming dispositive motion in NetChoice’s constitutional challenge to SB-396, the Arkansas age-verification Social Media Safety Act (see 2310300008), said Griffin’s opposition Monday (docket 5:23-cv-05105) in U.S. District Court for Western Arkansas in Fayetteville. NetChoice won a preliminary injunction Aug. 31 blocking Griffin’s enforcement of SB-396 (see 2309010024). A “hypothetical, unfiled motion isn’t grounds for a discovery stay,” said Griffin’s opposition. It’s not clear how the court “could even assess the likelihood of success of an unseen motion and determine that’s grounds for a discovery stay,” it said. That’s unless, as NetChoice apparently believes, the issuance of a preliminary injunction “always warrants a stay of discovery,” it said. That’s an “odd position,” since a preliminary injunction “is supposed to freeze things in place while the parties proceed with the case,” it said. That’s why the court should reject NetChoice’s motion, it said.

Redbox’s Oct. 31 motion to compel plaintiff Ruby Gamez’s Florida Telephone Solicitation Act claims to arbitration (see 2311020049) “is due to be denied in its entirety” because no agreement to arbitrate exists and Redbox has waived its right to compel arbitration, said her response Thursday (docket 8:23-cv-01497)) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa in opposition to the motion to compel. Gamez’s claims also aren’t subject to arbitration because “they fall outside the scope of the arbitration clause,” it said. Gamez alleges Redbox phoned her and countless other Florida consumers to promote its goods and services without their prior express written consent, as the FTSA requires. But Redbox contends that Gamez “expressly agreed,” at least three times before receiving an allegedly unlawful call from Redbox, to arbitrate all disputes with the company. It’s “well settled” that the court, not the arbitrator, “must decide whether an enforceable agreement to arbitrate exists,” said Gamez’s opposition. Gamez contends that no “valid written agreement to arbitrate exists,” despite Redbox’s assertions she agreed to arbitration terms when she visited Redbox kiosks three times between November 2019 and June 2020, said her opposition. The “miniscule text allegedly informing kiosk users of the existence” of Redbox’s arbitration provisions “is printed in considerably smaller font that the surrounding elements” and isn’t distinguished “by underlining, capitalization, or by the use of a different font color,” it said. The text that advises users of the existence of the arbitration provision also isn’t hyperlinked to lead to that provision, it said. A user would need “to click on the smaller button at the very bottom of the checkout screen” to view the provision, it said. None of Gamez’s three kiosk visits provided Gamez “with the required inquiry notice of the arbitration clause,” it said.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Mario Garcia for Southern Indiana in Indianapolis set a Nov. 21 status conference at 3:30 p.m. EST in the lawsuit brought by seven plaintiffs against Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R), said Garcia’s signed scheduling order Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-01805). The purpose of the conference is to discuss the plaintiffs' Nov. 3 motion for a preliminary injunction to block Rokita from enforcing HB-1186, the state law that took effect July 1 making it a misdemeanor for journalists to come within 25 feet of police officers on official duty (see 2311060046). The plaintiffs are the Indiana Broadcasters Association, the Indiana Professional Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, the Indianapolis Star, Nexstar, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Scripps and Tegna. They allege that HB-1186 violates the First and 14th Amendments “on its face,” and as applied to the plaintiffs’ “peaceful, nonobstructive newsgathering in public places.”

MV Realty, five of its subsidiaries and three of its officers deny the allegations in the 24-count complaint filed Sept. 5 by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) that they perpetuate an aggressive and illegal robocalling and telemarketing operation that targets Indiana homeowners (see 2309060001), said the defendants’ answer Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-01578) in U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana in Indianapolis. Their answer offered no affirmative defenses. Rokita alleges the defendants offer homeowners cash payments in exchange for a future interest in the sale of the homeowner’s real property. The homeowner benefit agreement, as their offer is called, is “nothing more than a disguised extension of credit with implicit interest to be paid back by the homeowner at a future date,” alleges the complaint.

The Indiana Broadcasters Association, plus Nexstar, Scripps, Tegna and three other co-plaintiffs, seek a preliminary injunction blocking Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (R) from enforcing HB-1186, the state law that took effect July 1, making it a misdemeanor for journalists to come within 25 feet of police officers on official duty, said their motion Friday (docket 1:23-cv-01805) in U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana in Indianapolis. The plaintiffs, which also include the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Indiana Professional Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Indianapolis Star, sued the state Oct. 6 to challenge HB-1186's constitutionality (see 2310100026). The plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claims that HB-1186 violates the First and 14th Amendments “on its face,” and as applied to the plaintiffs’ “peaceful, nonobstructive newsgathering in public places,” said their motion. They’re “now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction” due to the loss of their First Amendment freedoms, “for even minimal periods of time,” it said. The balance of equities “favors granting preliminary relief because” injunctions protecting First Amendment freedoms are always in the public interest, it said. The court should issue a preliminary injunction without bond because Rokita and Indiana “will suffer no damages from an injunction against enforcement of an unconstitutional statute,” it said. But requiring the posting of a bond would negatively impact the plaintiffs’ ability “to exercise their First Amendment rights,” it said. The parties propose having Indiana and Rokita answer or otherwise respond to the Oct. 6 complaint by Dec. 1, the same date when the plaintiffs will submit their memorandum of law and accompanying evidence in support of the injunction motion, it said.

Redbox seeks to stay discovery pending the court’s resolution of its Oct. 31 motion to compel plaintiff Ruby Gamez’s Florida Telephone Solicitation claims to arbitration (see 2311020049), said its motion to stay Wednesday (docket 8:23-cv-01497) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa. Gamez alleges Redbox phoned and texted her and countless other Florida consumers to promote its goods and services without their prior express written consent as the FTSA requires. But Gamez’s filing of her suit is “in contravention” of the terms “governing her relationship with Redbox,” so Redbox moved to compel arbitration and stay this action because the Middle District of Florida isn’t the proper forum to address Gamez’s “contrived grievances,” said the motion to compel. Gamez has served written discovery on Redbox “and refused to agree to stay responses” until the court has ruled on Redbox’s motion to compel, it said.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is proposing oral argument for the week of Feb. 12 in New York for Attorney General Letitia James’ (D) appeal to reverse the injunction that blocks her from enforcing Section 394-ccc, New York’s hateful conduct law, said a text-only docket entry Thursday (docket 23-356). James alleges three online platform plaintiffs aren’t likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the requirements in Section 394-ccc infringe on their First Amendment rights (see 2310160001). Section 394-ccc requires social media networks to give users a mechanism for reporting hateful conduct on the network. The law also requires networks to disclose a policy explaining how the network will respond to user reports.

An Oct. 18 COVID-19 diagnosis forced the office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) to ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals late Wednesday to extend until Dec. 13 the deadline for Bonta’s opening brief in his appeal of the district court's Sept. 18 decision granting NetChoice’s motion for a preliminary injunction to block him from enforcing the state’s Age Appropriate Design Code (see 2310190030), said the office’s unopposed motion (docket 23-2969). Bonta’s lead attorney, Deputy AG Elizabeth Watson, was diagnosed with COVID-19 and “continues to experience symptoms,” said the motion. Watson has returned to work, “and will be working to meet and prepare for various deadlines in other matters,” many of which her illness also affected, during the briefing period, it said. The briefing in the law's appeal “will cover novel legal issues that deserve careful consideration and diligent research, including the appropriate standard of review for laws regulating the collection and use of data,” said the motion. Other attorneys will need to review the briefing before it’s “finalized and filed,” it said. Any “lesser” deadline extension than the 28 days requested “would result in briefing being due on or around the Thanksgiving holiday,” said the motion. Counsel for NetChoice consents to the requested extension with the “understanding” that Bonta’s office won’t oppose a similar extension for NetChoice in the future, it said. Bonta’s office also agreed not to seek a stay of the preliminary injunction order currently in place, said the motion. Under the agreed-on proposed revised schedule, NetChoice’s answering brief would be due Feb. 7, and Bonta’s reply brief would be due March 13, it said. In granting the preliminary injunction, the U.S. District Court for Northern California held that NetChoice was likely to succeed on the merits of its argument that the law violates the First Amendment. The lower court also held that the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and the Communications Decency Act's Section 230 preempt it. Bonta filed his notice of appeal Oct. 18 (see 2310190030), the same day Watson's declaration says she was diagnosed with COVID-19.

Plaintiff Ruby Gamez brought her claims for violations of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act to the “wrong forum” when she sued Redbox in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa (see 2307060003), said the company’s motion Tuesday (docket 8:23-cv-01497) to compel those claims to arbitration. Gamez alleges Redbox phoned her and countless other Florida consumers to promote its goods and services without their prior express written consent as the FTSA requires. But Gamez “expressly agreed,” at least three times before receiving an allegedly unlawful call from Redbox, to arbitrate all disputes with the company, said its motion. That “indisputably includes her claim” for alleged FTSA violations, Redbox said, and the court should dismiss or stay her case so she can “pursue her claims in the forum she agreed to.”