U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler for Northern California in San Francisco set a March 16 hearing at 9:30 a.m. PDT virtually on T-Mobile’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the California Public Utilities Commission (docket 3:23-cv-00483). T-Mobile challenged the CPUC changing state USF to connections-based contribution (see 2302020058). Responses to the injunction motion are due by Feb. 27; replies by March 9, Beeler said Monday.

The U.S. District Court for Southern Texas in Houston is the venue in which the eight-state robocall lawsuit resides, not the Northern District of Texas in Dallas. John Spiller, one of the remaining defendants in the lawsuit, agreed Friday to a $122.34 million monetary judgment, suspended for his inability to pay, to resolve the robocall allegations against him "without admitting liability” (see 2302130010).

Debt collector Mercantile Adjustment Bureau’s motion to dismiss Sage Telecom’s first amended complaint (see 2301190057) “is premised on self-serving characterizations of Merc’s own business practices,” said Sage’s response Thursday (docket 3:22-cv-02737) in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas. The motion is “at odds” with the allegations in the complaint, and doesn't mesh with commercial reality or "even common sense,” it said. Sage provides discounted internet and phone service to low-income Texas consumers through state and federally funded programs. It alleges at least 187 subscribers to its Lifeline services received multiple telephone solicitations in the past two years from a phone number owned by Mercantile, in violation of Texas’ Business & Communications Code 302.251. Mercantile’s motion to dismiss said Sage lacks standing because it didn't receive any calls itself and thus didn't suffer damages. Under the “regulatory ambit” of the FCC for the Lifeline services it provides, Sage is required to demonstrate it will satisfy applicable consumer protection and service quality standards, said Sage’s response. “Sage is not only authorized to make consumer protection claims on behalf of Lifeline Subscribers, it is required to do so in order to stay in business,” it said. By targeting consumers “indiscriminately,” Mercantile places the accuracy of Sage’s data reporting to the government at risk, and subjects Sage “to enhanced scrutiny by the FCC,” it said. If Sage overstates the number of legitimate calls made to Lifeline subscribers by including the “illegitimate calls” from Mercantile, “taxpayers bear the ultimate burden,” it said. “The motion should be denied so that the case can proceed to discovery and so that Merc’s business practices can be assessed in view of the broad protections” of the Texas statute, it said.

Texas inappropriately cited a contract case standard to justify the state's $250 cap on right-of-way rental fees for 5G wireless equipment, McAllen and other cities said in a reply brief posted Friday at the Texas 3rd Court of Appeals (case 03-22-00524-CV). Texas told the court last month that cities challenging a 2017 small-cells law made no showing or allegation the $250 cap was unconscionably low or tantamount to fraud (see 2301270028). “The flaw in the State’s analysis is that the standard it espouses relates specifically and exclusively to contract law,” said the cities. “There is nothing to suggest it would apply to a legislatively directed transfer of public property as is at issue here.” If the contract law rule can be applied, the court can’t jump to summary judgment, the cities said. “Assuming that the court is not prepared to establish a rule that consideration of as little as ten percent of an item’s value will always be sufficient to avoid the constitutional gift or grant prohibitions, then it will be necessary to determine what the value of transferred asset is. And that is a genuine issue of a material fact that precludes issuance of a summary judgment.”

Georgia Public Service Commissioner Tim Echols’ motion to dismiss a free speech complaint against him should be denied because “basic, core principles of free speech law were violated and qualified immunity is no bar,” said plaintiff Patty Durand in a Monday brief (docket 1:22-cv-04548) in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta. Durand, the Republican commissioner’s Democratic rival in an election that was canceled in November (see 2302020006), unblocked and restored access to Durand and others with opposing views on his Facebook page and Twitter account, leading Durand to dismiss her motion for preliminary injunctive relief, but other claims for injunctive relief remain, said the brief. After a joint agreement, Durand expressed her critical views on Echols 11 times, and she “has not been blocked again” so further court oversight “appears unnecessary,” but Echols claims “qualified immunity/that the law was not clear, (i.e., that he could maybe retaliate against Plaintiff based upon the viewpoint she expressed),” said the brief. Echols’ actions “violate long established, core free speech principles.” Durand also seeks “small nominal and actual damages” against Echols in his individual capacity for violations of free speech.

The “unique circumstances” of Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody’s (R) robocall complaint against Smartbiz Telecom (SBT) (see 2301230054) warrant a discovery stay in the case, said SBT’s motion Friday (docket 1:22-cv-23945) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Miami. The discovery requests served on SBT by Moody’s office “are overly broad and unduly burdensome, particularly in light of the allegations in SBT’s pending motion to dismiss,” it said. The case “has a unique component” in that the Florida AG “had the benefit of pre-trial discovery through investigative subpoenas,” it said. Despite obtaining the records for more than 255 “tracebacks” accounting for more than 3 million calls, the AG now demands four years of call records for 22 upstream providers, for any call to any number anywhere in the U.S., it said. “This is an unreasonable fishing expedition,” it said. It also exceeds the statutory authority of the AG to bring this case as parens patriae, the government protector, of the residents of Florida only, it said.

Georgia Public Service Commissioner Tim Echols (R) filed a motion to stay (docket 1:22-cv-04548) discovery and discovery-related obligations Wednesday in the lawsuit filed against him by Democratic rival Patty Durand in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta. The motion to stay discovery was based on Echols’ motion to dismiss Monday on the grounds that he unblocked Durand from posting to his social media accounts, one of the claims in her First Amendment suit (see 2302010036). Durand voluntarily dismissed her motion for a preliminary injunction last month after Echols committed to not deleting any comments on social media accounts, but her claim for monetary damages remained pending. Durand sued Echols in November for allegedly retaliating against her and violating her free speech rights under the First and 14th amendments by deleting and blocking her posts on his social media accounts. The status of the election is in limbo after U.S. District Court Judge Steven Grimberg ruled in August that the PSC’s at-large elections violate the Voting Rights Act. That ruling is under appeal at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A freedom of speech lawsuit against Georgia Public Service Commissioner Tim Echols (R) should be dismissed after the defendant unblocked plaintiff Patty Durand, his 2022 Democratic challenger in a canceled November PSC election, from posting on his Facebook and Twitter pages, said a Monday motion to dismiss (docket 1:22-cv-4548) in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta. Durand’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are “moot” because Echols unblocked his rival and “has no intention of -- and indeed, will not -- block her in the future,” said the filing. Durand’s claims for monetary damages are barred by qualified immunity because the law isn't “clearly established” that Echols’ conduct was unconstitutional, he said. Durand voluntarily dismissed her motion for a preliminary injunction last month after Echols committed to not deleting any comments on social media accounts, but her claim for monetary damages remained pending (see 2301100012). Durand sued Echols in November for allegedly retaliating against her and violating her free speech rights under the First and 14th amendments by deleting and blocking her posts on his social media accounts. The status of the election is in limbo after U.S. District Court Judge Steven Grimberg ruled in August that the PSC’s at-large elections violate the Voting Rights Act. That ruling is under appeal at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The stipulated final judgment that New York reached with ISP plaintiffs in July 2021 over the state’s Affordable Broadband Act “did not effectuate a waiver” of the state’s right to appeal the ABA’s permanent injunction, the Office of New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) told the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a supplemental brief Monday (docket 21-1975). If the ISP plaintiffs’ “understanding is correct,” the New York AG “did not relinquish the arguments presented on appeal and has standing to pursue them,” they said in their supplemental brief. But if the 2nd Circuit disagrees, the New York AG “would have relinquished those arguments and lacks standing to pursue this appeal,” they said. The 2nd Circuit ordered the supplemental briefs Jan. 20 on whether the court has appellate jurisdiction over the lower court’s final judgment that the parties negotiated (see 2301230040). New York “retains a concrete and redressable stake in this litigation,” said James’ brief. The district court’s injunction against enforcement of the ABA “is causing an ongoing injury to New York and specifically to low-income New Yorkers,” it said. “This injury would be redressed by a favorable ruling from this Court rejecting plaintiffs’ federal-preemption theories and reversing the final judgment and injunction contingent on those theories.” The stipulated judgment at issue “bears some similarity to a conditional plea agreement, whereby a criminal defendant may plead guilty while expressly preserving for appellate review an interlocutory ruling” that's effectively, even if not always technically, dispositive of the case, it said. When the ISP associations agreed to the New York AG’s proposal to convert the preliminary injunction ruling in the associations’ favor into a stipulated final judgment imposing a permanent injunction, the associations understood that the New York AG “was not relinquishing her right to appeal that permanent injunction,” said the ISP plaintiffs. They urged the 2nd Circuit to affirm the district court’s final judgment “permanently enjoining” the ABA and declaring it preempted by federal law.

Plaintiff NetChoice’s motion for a preliminary injunction is due Feb. 17 in its lawsuit seeking to invalidate California’s age-appropriate social media design law (see 2212140063), said a text-only entry Sunday (docket 5:22-cv-08861) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose. California’s response to the motion is due April 21, and NetChoice’s reply brief is due May 19, said the entry. NetChoice alleges AB-2273 violates the First Amendment by telling sites how to “manage constitutionally protected speech.” California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) defends the law as working to address “some of the real and demonstrated harms associated with social media and other online products and services.”