U.S. District Judge James Cain for Western Louisiana in Lake Charles signed a memorandum order Monday (docket 2:21-cv-00923) denying Frank Walker's family leave to do discovery in support of their allegations the cellphone industry concealed the known health risks of cellphones (see 2301170001). The Walkers’ April 2021 complaint argues the cellphone industry quashed information showing many phones don’t comply with the FCC’s specific absorption rate (SAR) limitations for how much RF radiation is absorbed into the body, and that this led to Frank Walker’s death from brain cancer. Despite the cellphone industry’s motion to dismiss on grounds that federal law preempts the Walkers’ complaint, the Walkers “nonetheless argue that discovery is necessary to resolve questions of congressional intent,” said Cain’s order. But discovery into either the extent of defendants’ compliance with the FCC's SAR regulations or congressional intent behind those regulations “appears unduly burdensome to the numerous defendants named in this suit,” said the order. “It could entail depositions, expert testimony, and additional delays in a case that has already been pending in this court for nearly two years,” it said: “Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ request is properly denied.” The order reinstated briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss on preemption grounds, with the Walkers' response due Feb 13, and the defendants' reply brief due seven days later. Two other motions to dismiss will be held in abeyance until the preemption motion is resolved, said the order.

A bid by Dish Network designated entities Northstar Wireless and SNR Wireless for judgment on the pleadings is another "procedural stunt" to stop the fraud suit against them from advancing, Vermont National Telephone said Monday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (docket 1:15-cv-00728) in opposition to the DEs' motion. VTEL said the DEs already waived a False Claims Act's public disclosure bar argument so they can't use that public disclosure bar -- which prohibits an FCA suit based on fraud that already has been made public. It said the public disclosure bar doesn't foreclose this case. In their motion last month, the DEs said the public disclosure bar requires dismissal because the factual fraud allegations and claims were publicly disclosed before the Vermont National complaint. The U.S Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit earlier this year reversed the lower court's dismissal of VTEL's Fair Claims Act suit alleging fraud by the DEs in the 2015 AWS-3 auction (see 2205170026).

Class-action plaintiff Juan Luis Garcia Moreno doesn't contest that he agreed to arbitrate disputes with T-Mobile, said the carrier Friday in a reply (docket 2:22-cv-00843) in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle in support of its motion to compel arbitration. An arbitrator, not the court, “has the sole responsibility to determine the enforceability and scope of the arbitration agreement,” said T-Mobile. Garcia Moreno “acknowledges that nothing in the arbitration agreement impairs his ability to get complete relief for any individual claim he has against T-Mobile,” it said. Garcia Moreno’s June 15 class action alleges T-Mobile developed, marketed, distributed and advertised the launch of its 5G network without disclosing to its customers, including former Sprint customers, that it intended to shut down older 5G networks without adequately addressing network incompatibilities for numerous devices dependent on them. T-Mobile’s July 2020 shutdown of Sprint’s 5G network left about 75,000 sold 5G phones without the ability to receive a 5G signal, said the complaint. Rather than offer owners of those phones free upgrades, customers would have to switch their phone and phone plan to a new offering from T-Mobile, it alleged, seeking damages under the Washington Consumer Protection Act. T-Mobile responded Aug. 29 with a motion to compel the dispute to arbitration, asserting Garcia Moreno repeatedly agreed he would arbitrate claims against T-Mobile on an individual basis. Garcia Moreno’s opposition to the motion to compel challenged the “substantive conscionability” of the T-Mobile arbitration agreement.

The U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa granted AT&T’s request to transfer its motion to compel Voxon documents under subpoena to the U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, where the subpoena originated, said an order signed Wednesday (docket 8:22-mc-43) by U.S. Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone. Core Communications sued AT&T in the Philadelphia court seeking the recovery of $11.4 million in unpaid access services charges (see 2211230053). AT&T challenges the validity of the unpaid charges, and says the documents it seeks from Voxon, one of Core’s upstream partners, are “directly relevant” to its defense in the case. Voxon didn't respond to AT&T’s motions to transfer or compel, and under Local Rule 3.01(c) the court is free to treat the motions as unopposed, said Sansone’s order. Other nonparties failed to comply with AT&T subpoenas, and AT&T “anticipates moving to compel and transfer in various jurisdictions,” it said. Without transfer to the Philadelphia court, “there is a risk of conflicting rulings,” it said. “The complexity of the underlying litigation favors finding exceptional circumstances to transfer these subpoena related motions,” said the judge. “The exceptional circumstances here -- the risk of inconsistent discovery rulings, the complexity of the case, as well as the interests of judicial economy and efficiency -- outweigh the interest Voxon has in litigating AT&T’s motion to compel locally.”

The FCC has again asked the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to continue holding in abeyance a League of California Cities challenge to the FCC’s June 2020 wireless infrastructure declaratory ruling. The court has approved multiple previous abeyance requests (see 2207290029) , stretching back to March 2021. The last abeyance was granted in July, and ran out Monday. The current request asks the court to hold the case until Jan. 30. As in previous requests, the FCC argued that the case should be delayed until a fifth commissioner is appointed.

TIA and ZTE agreed to stay the briefing in their separate motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the RF radiation complaint in U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana over a pastor’s death from brain cancer until the court resolves the motion from AT&T, Cricket, CTIA, Microsoft and Motorola to dismiss the case because it is preempted by federal law (see 2210180078), said a consent motion Tuesday (docket 2:21-cv-00923). The court should grant the requested stay “for efficiency and scheduling reasons,” the motion said. It also asked the court to extend the briefing deadlines on the preemption motion to dismiss to Dec. 7 for the plaintiffs to respond and to Dec. 23 for the defendants to reply. U.S. District Judge James Cain will address the motions at a telephone status conference planned for Thursday at 11:30 a.m. CDT, said an electronic order Wednesday. The April 2021 complaint accuses the cellphone industry of concealing and suppressing information showing that many handsets don’t comply with the FCC’s specific absorption rate limitations for how much RF radiation is absorbed by phone users. Frank Walker's widow and two sons allege this led to his death from brain cancer.

ZTE filed a motion Tuesday to “conditionally join in” and adopt the motion filed Oct. 17 by its co-defendants to dismiss the April 2021 complaint alleging that the cellphone industry has worked to conceal and suppress information showing that many handsets don’t comply with the FCC’s specific absorption rate limitations for how much RF radiation is absorbed by phone users. The widow and two sons of Frank Walker allege that this led to his death from brain cancer (see 2210240060). The law set forth by the co-defendants “applies equally” to ZTE, and so “is also entitled to dismissal on the basis of preemption” if its own motion to dismiss is not granted, said Tuesday's motion (docket 2:21-cv-00923) in U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana in Lake Charles. The co-defendants’ motion to dismiss “is based on failure to state a claim,” said ZTE. The “doctrine of preemption” that’s the backbone of the Oct. 17 dismissal motion “is a fundamental Constitutional principle setting forth that federal law preempts claims made under state law,” it said. The legal allegations made against ZTE, which are state law claims, “implicate all the same legal issues as those raised” in the co-defendants’ motion to dismiss, it said. U.S. District Judge James Cain in an electronic order postponed to Nov. 3 a telephonic status conference he previously scheduled for Tuesday afternoon. A scheduling conflict necessitated the change, his order said.

The U.S. government charged two Chinese intelligence officers with attempting to obstruct a criminal case against Huawei, in the Eastern District of New York, DOJ said Monday. The charges against Guochun He and Zheng Wang were announced by Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray and other officials. The agents thought they recruited “an asset,” but the individual was “actually a double agent working on behalf of the FBI,” Garland said at a news conference: “The defendants paid a bribe to the double agent to obtain nonpublic information, including files from the U.S. attorney’s office in the Eastern District. They did so in the hope of obtaining the prosecution’s strategy memo, confidential information regarding witnesses, trial evidence and potentially new charges to be brought against” Huawei. The defendants, who are still at large, allegedly paid about $61,000 in Bitcoin bribes to the FBI agent, DOJ said. The complaint said the incident took place after January 2019. In 2020, the U.S. accused Huawei of conspiring to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (see 2002130030). If convicted, He faces up to 60 years in prison, Wang up to 20 years, DOJ said. “Anyone still wanna make the case that concerns about Huawei are overblown?” tweeted Michael Sobolik, fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council. “Sorry not sorry, Huawei is a tech cancer,” tweeted Nathan Leamer, an aide to former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: “We must secure our networks and kick them out.”

CTIA told the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the FCC Office of General Counsel's August amicus on the National Lifeline Association's challenge of the California Public Utilities Commission's requirement that wireless providers charge no co-payment to participate in the state's Lifeline program "sets forth a novel and unduly narrow view" of the Communications Act's Section 332 preemption (see 2210210073). OGC's arguments would "embolden California and other states to set prices for wireless services" and "needlessly burden the same consumers that universal service programs are designed to protect," CTIA said in a filing posted Friday in case 21-15969. The group raised concerns about states having a "backdoor" to "seek ratemaking authority from the FCC."

SES' appeal of the U.S Bankruptcy Court's rejection of its claims seeking up to $1.8 billion in damages from Intelsat for the demise of the C-Band Alliance (see 2210030050) has been assigned docket 3:22cv668 with U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia, per a notification Wednesday.