RedBox “persists in operating” its video rental kiosks on 7-Eleven store property without permission and for RedBox’s “sole financial benefit,” despite 7-Eleven’s termination in August of the parties’ January 2015 written contract due to RedBox’s failure to honor its payment obligations, alleged 7-Eleven’s complaint Friday (docket 1:24-cv-04741) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. The chain store company seeks to recover roughly $270,000 in commissions it says RedBox owes it under the terms of the contract, plus an order compelling the defendant to remove its kiosks from 7-Eleven’s store locations. RedBox promised that in the event of the contract’s termination, it would remove the kiosks from the plaintiff's stores “at its sole cost and expense,” said the complaint. The defendant also agreed to surrender ownership of the spaces that the kiosks occupied, and to return those spaces “to good clean condition,” it said. RedBox also agreed to continue paying the plaintiff commission revenue until the kiosks were removed, it said. Under the terminated contract, Redbox agreed to pay 7-Eleven a 10.76% commission on each DVD rental, and 8.5% on each videogame rental. The commission rate fell to 3% on sellthrough and previously viewed DVD and videogame content, said the contract. Payments were due within 20 days after the end of each calendar month, it said.

Former President Donald Trump’s May 24 opposition to ABC News and George Stephanopoulos' motion to dismiss Trump’s defamation complaint (see 2405280024) wrongly asserts that the case isn’t about the difference between rape and sexual battery, the media company and news anchor's reply said. It was filed Friday (docket 1:24-cv-21050) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Miami. “In fact, that is exactly what it is about,” the reply said. Trump alleges Stephanopoulos repeatedly said during his March 10 interview with Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., that multiple juries found Trump liable for raping journalist E. Jean Carroll. In 2023, a federal jury found Trump liable for sexually assaulting Carroll, but not liable for raping her. ABC News and Stephanopoulos urge the court to dismiss Trump’s complaint because all the challenged statements “are substantially true, given that there is no material difference between rape and sexual assault for purposes of defamation,” their reply said. The defendants also think that Trump “is collaterally estopped from arguing otherwise,” because the Southern District of New York twice decided “this very question” to Trump’s detriment in prior litigation, it said. The remainder of Trump’s opposition “is little more than an effort to distract from these core dispositive points,” it said. In an attempt to avoid dismissal of his claims on collateral estoppel grounds, Trump argues that this court can’t consider the documents attached to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. These include court records reflecting U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan’s findings that the jury in the second Carroll trial found Trump liable for rape, said the reply. Yet the reply argues that the Southern District of Florida “may consider these documents because they are judicially noticeable and are incorporated by reference” in the complaint. Once it considers those documents, the court can readily dismiss the complaint on collateral estoppel grounds because the Southern District of New York “definitively decided a dispositive issue” in this case to Trump’s detriment, it said. The fact that ABC News and Stephanopoulos weren’t parties to the two Carroll cases is “irrelevant,” it said. New York law doesn’t require “mutuality between the parties for collateral estoppel to apply,” it said. As for the merits, the court can, as many other courts have, determine the issue of substantial truth on a 12(b)(6) motion “because all the relevant facts are already before it,” it said. Trump’s arguments “merely reinforce why there is a line of cases” holding that the gist and sting of terms like rape and sexual assault “are materially the same,” it said. The court should also dismiss the complaint “on the basis of the fair report privilege for much the same reasons,” it said. Trump’s use of his opposition brief to request leave to amend is "procedurally improper, and any amendment would be futile," it said. Ultimately, regardless of which avenue, or avenues, this court takes -- collateral estoppel, substantial truth or fair report -- “all roads lead to dismissal,” it said. The defendants therefore ask that the court dismiss the complaint with prejudice, it said.

The Agriculture Department’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) disregarded its own ReConnect program regulations when it awarded nearly $70 million in federal grants in the fourth round of funding last year to two phone companies, Interior and Mukluk, to deploy broadband services for individuals and businesses in Alaska’s Nome census area, alleged two native villages in a preliminary injunction motion Friday (docket 3:24-cv-00100) in U.S. District Court for Alaska. Unalakleet and Elim are federally recognized tribes that contend that Interior and Mukluk didn’t obtain resolutions of tribal consent from them or any other tribes within the Nome census area, as RUS’ “clear and unambiguous” ReConnect program regulations require, said their complaint. ReConnect furnishes loans and grants to cover the costs of construction, improvement or acquisition of facilities and equipment needed to provide broadband service in eligible rural areas. In disregarding its own regulations, RUS “acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act,” alleged the complaint. As a direct result of RUS’ violation of the APA, tribes such as Unalakleet and Elim have been irreparably harmed, it said. The issuance of awards in “contravention” of RUS regulations mandating tribal consent itself irreparably harms tribal “sovereignty,” because the right to approve or reject proposals over tribal lands can’t be restored by the payment of money, it said. Despite obtaining nearly $70 million in ReConnect funding, Interior and Mukluk haven’t begun construction and aren’t serving the Nome census area, it said. Because ReConnect regulations say that RUS won’t fund more than one project that serves any one given geographic area, the issuance of any award, even improper, has the effect of precluding tribal lands “from obtaining the benefit of any future awards from RUS,” it said. Tribes such as Unalakleet and Elim “have been forced to accept non-existent services from providers to which they did not consent and have been prevented from receiving services from providers to which they do consent,” said the complaint. RUS’ improper funding awards also compromise the rights of tribes “to benefit from alternative federal funding administered by agencies other than USDA,” such as NTIA’s broadband equity, access and deployment program, “causing additional irreparable harm,” it said. Unalakleet and Elim “have established that a preliminary injunction should issue,” it said They seek an order compelling RUS to “deobligate” Interior and Mukluk’s ReConnect program awards “until such time as they can be declared void and unenforceable through this action,” it said. They separately seek an order compelling RUS to designate the plaintiffs as unserved, “thus removing the cloud on eligibility for concurrent and future federal funding during the pendency of this action,” it said.

The opening brief of petitioners TikTok and ByteDance (docket 24-1113) and that of eight TikTok content creators (docket 24-1130), all challenging the constitutionality of the federal TikTok ban (see 2405070045), are due June 20, said a scheduling order Tuesday in the U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit. Amicus briefs supporting the petitioners or supporting neither party are due June 27, with the government’s responding brief due July 26, said the order. Amicus briefs in support of the government’s TikTok ban are due Aug. 2, it said. The case will be heard by a panel of Circuit Judges Robert Wilkins, Michelle Childs and Florence Pan, said the order.

A real estate development firm seeks nearly $448,000 in damages as a result of Hixxa Communications’ breach of contract, alleged its complaint Friday (docket 5:24-cv-00702) in U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana in Shreveport. Ryan Companies, as general contractor, and Hixxa, as subcontractor, entered into a contract in November 2021 in connection with the construction of a new Amazon fulfillment center in Shreveport, said the complaint. Under the subcontract, Hixxa was obligated to design, furnish and install an emergency responder radio system (ERRS) in the Amazon facility in accordance with the applicable project specification, it said. Hixxa was obligated to begin and complete its work as required by the project schedule, said the complaint. Hixxa was further obligated “to take necessary action to accelerate its work should it delay the progress of its work,” it said. It was obligated to do so without additional compensation and is liable under the subcontract “for any direct damages resulting from any such delay,” it said. In the event that Hixxa failed to cure any default within three working days after Ryan issued a notice of that default, Ryan was authorized under the agreement to terminate the subcontract, finish Hixxa’s work either through its own employees or another subcontractor and charge the entire cost to Hixxa, “together with all damages suffered because of Hixxa’s delayed performance,” it said. Though Hixxa completed some of its obligations, “it failed to fully complete its scope of work,” it said. The plaintiff made numerous attempts to compel Hixxa’s performance, said the complaint. In a September email, the defendant represented to Ryan that it was in the process of acquiring the remaining materials needed to finish the job, and would be back to finish the project once those materials were procured, it said. But Hixxa didn’t return to complete its work as promised, it said. The defendant notified Ryan in a Nov. 15 email that it was unable to complete the ERRS project, and the plaintiff responded April 8 with formal written notice that it had terminated the subcontract, it said: “As a result of Hixxa’s failure to perform, Ryan was forced to engage a second subcontractor to furnish and install the ERRS.” Not only did the cost of the work exceed the original subcontract price, “much of the work that was performed by Hixxa must be replaced or modified in order to accommodate/facilitate the work to be performed by the new subcontractor,” said the complaint. In addition to the damages, Ryan further seeks attorneys’ fees and court costs, “which are recoverable pursuant to the parties’ contract should Ryan prevail against Hixxa,” it said.

Former President Donald Trump urges the U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Miami to deny ABC and Sunday host George Stephanopoulos' motion to dismiss Trump’s defamation complaint (see 2405120001), said Trump’s opposition Friday (docket 1:24-cv-21050). The case stems from Stephanopoulos’ March 10 interview with Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., in which Trump alleges Stephanopoulos repeatedly said that multiple juries found Trump liable for raping journalist E. Jean Carroll (see 2403190059), said Trump’s opposition. In 2023, a federal jury found Trump liable for sexually assaulting Carroll, but not liable for raping her. Trump has appealed that verdict. Despite ABC’s attempt to cast the allegations in the complaint in a light that fits their theories of defense, this case isn’t about “the difference between rape and sexual battery,” nor is it about ABC’s attempts “to minimize the significant distinctions that exist between these terms,” said Trump’s opposition. The claims, rather, relate to Stephanopoulos’ “unmistakably untruthful, knowingly false, and defamatory statements as to what the jury in the Carroll II case actually determined,” it said. As ABC and Stephanopoulos readily admit in their motion to dismiss, Trump “has never been found liable by a jury for raping Carroll,” as that term is defined under New York’s penal code, it said. Despite “plainly possessing such knowledge,” Stephanopoulos "intentionally and maliciously repeatedly stated" more than 10 times during the Mace interview that Trump had been found liable or guilty by multiple juries for the rape of Carroll, it said. In fact, the jury specifically held that Carroll didn’t prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Trump raped her, it said. Stephanopoulos’ statements in this regard were “false and defamatory.”

The government’s “oft-repeated mantra” that it’s aware of its discovery obligations can’t “mask” that it makes “multiple concessions” that entitle Hytera to relief, said the company’s reply brief Wednesday (docket 1:20-cr-00688) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago in support of its renewed motion May 1 to compel discovery and for a Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) hearing. Hytera contends it has “incontrovertible evidence” that the government is conducting a classified investigation into the company’s relationship with the Chinese Communist Party, and that it’s holding on to “discoverable information” that must be produced (see 2405010046). Whether the government is aware of its discovery obligations, “it misreads the law in several respects,” said Hytera’s reply brief. The government repeatedly offers to provide the court ex parte with evidence to support its claims that the defense isn’t entitled to review the reports of its interviews with Hytera’s in-house attorney, Leon Su, about his affiliation with the Chinese government or an unredacted version of the discovery the defendant attached as an exhibit to its motion, it said. Yet providing that type of information to the court -- ex parte or otherwise -- “is exactly the process envisioned under CIPA,” it said. The government “simply refuses to invoke that term,” preferring its own “ad hoc approach to following the statutory scheme,” it said. But CIPA and its protections for defendants can’t be “circumvented this way,” it said. The statutory scheme “exists precisely for this situation,” and the government can’t avoid it by offering the court evidence “in some lesser, unsupervised fashion that lacks the protective guardrails of CIPA,” it said. The government concedes that the prosecution team has access to and understands the contents of Su’s interviews, it said. The government repeatedly refers both to specific topics and questions that interviewers from Customs and Border Protection and the FBI covered, “as well as what the government claims agents did not cover,” it said. “Given the substantial overlap” between the criminal case and the related civil litigation, and in light of Su’s role as a lawyer for Hytera overseeing that civil litigation, the government’s interrogations of Su “functionally enabled them to infiltrate the defense camp,” it said. “This is a serious intrusion that cannot be addressed with a handful of informal emails or unsworn sentences in a brief,” it said. Few people have more knowledge of Hytera’s defense strategies than Su, it said: “To assess the seriousness of the intrusion, Hytera is entitled to, at the very least, sworn declarations and a hearing regarding the role of the various government actors involved in this intrusion, as well as an accounting of what information they obtained from Mr. Su and precisely what they did with that information.” A grand jury in May 2021 returned an indictment listing multiple counts of trade secret theft against Hytera and seven of its engineers who developed digital mobile radios for Motorola in Malaysia beginning in 2004 (see 2301260060). The engineers quit Motorola in 2008 and 2009 to go to work for Hytera in Shenzhen, and the government alleges they took Motorola’s DMR trade secrets with them when they left.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Appeals Court has tentatively listed Core Communications’ appeal against AT&T on the merits for July 9 in Philadelphia, said a clerk’s notice Wednesday (docket 23-3022). A 3rd Circuit panel will determine whether there will be oral argument and if so, the amount of time allocated for each side, said the notice. Core is appealing the Oct. 13 order of U.S. District Judge Joshua Wolson for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia granting AT&T summary judgment in its access service charges dispute with the company (see 2310160018).

Bleichmar Fonti is conducting an investigation into the unsolicited nonbinding preliminary proposal that WideOpenWest received May 2 from DigitalBridge Investments and various Crestview Partners entities to buy for $4.80 a share in cash all the outstanding shares of WOW that Crestview doesn’t currently own (see 2405030047), the law firm’s overview page said. It’s probing the proposal to determine whether WOW’s board “is conflicted, engaging in an unfair process, and agreeing to an unfair amount to be paid to shareholders,” it said. WOW doesn't comment on pending legal matters, a spokesperson said in an email Wednesday.

ABC, ABC News and Sunday host George Stephanopoulos seek the dismissal of former President Donald Trump’s March 18 defamation complaint for failure to state a claim, said the defendants’ motion Friday (docket 1:24-cv-21050) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Miami. Trump alleges that Stephanopoulos, on his March 10 ABC television show, repeatedly said that multiple juries found Trump liable for raping journalist E. Jean Carroll (see 2403190059). In 2023, a federal jury found Trump liable for sexually assaulting Carroll, but not liable for raping her. Trump has appealed that verdict. Trump’s lawsuit seeks to relitigate “a meritless theory of defamation that he has already lost twice in New York,” said the motion to dismiss. Trump is “collaterally estopped from doing so here,” it said. If the Miami court were to reach the merits, “at bottom,” this case asserts that even after a jury has found that a person committed a violent sexual assault, it is defamatory to say that the person committed a rape, said the motion. That’s not a proposition that Florida law recognizes, it said. To the contrary, courts in Florida and around the country “have consistently rejected variations of this same theory,” it said: “This action therefore presents straightforward issues of law that this Court can -- and we submit should -- resolve on this motion to dismiss.” U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga granted the defendants’ motion for leave to "conventionally file," by delivery to the clerk, a USB flash drive containing video of the March 10 broadcast in support of their motion to dismiss, said the judge’s signed order Friday. Publications appearing in video form can't be electronically filed because the court's case management system doesn't permit filings to be submitted via USB flash drives without prior court approval, said the motion for leave.