U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff for Southern New York set a May 16 trial date in Verizon’s legal fight with its debt collection agency, CBE Customer Solutions, over the culpability for $6.1 million in damages and court costs associated with a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class-action settlement (see 2212120041), said a case management plan filed Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-08703). Rakoff wants discovery completed by May 15, said the plan. Verizon says an April 2014 master services agreement stipulates that CBE should indemnify Verizon for fees and costs the carrier incurs "in defending any claims arising out of CBE's services." CBE countersued for unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith, alleging any negligence that mushroomed into a TCPA class action and settlement was of Verizon’s doing, not CBE’s.

Mission Broadcast's insistence that Comcast carry its WPIX New York station under an agreement with Nexstar and its refusal to negotiate with Comcast directly resulted in a blackout of the station that started Dec. 3, Comcast said in a filing posted Tuesday in a good-faith negotiation complaint (docket 12-1). The WPIX blackout is "an archetypical example of bad faith negotiations" and collusion by the two, as Mission refused to negotiate for WPIX retransmission consent and Nexstar shot down proposals for a standstill and true up agreement for WPIX, Comcast said in the redacted complaint. A Nexstar spokesperson emailed that the broadcaster has been negotiating with Comcast since October but the cabler "seems unwilling to reach a fair agreement, similar to those we have with our other satellite, cable, and telco partners. Nexstar is simply seeking fair market rates for the live sports, local news, and high-quality entertainment programming we provide to millions of viewers across the country. We have a long track record of negotiating fairly and avoiding service interruptions in our markets and we hope to reach agreement with Comcast." Control of WPIX is also the subject of pending ligation between Comcast and the broadcasters, and of a complaint filed by Comcast with the FCC (see 2107140059).

Attorneys for Charter Communications and Spectrum filed a civil appeal statement Monday at the 11th Circuit U.S. Appeals Court (docket 22-13931) in their appeal of an Oct. 17 order in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida granting summary judgment to a plaintiff who successfully sued to force the company to supply him with free equipment and services. Plaintiff Harry Jacobs was a shareholder in Sanlando Cablevision when Storer Communications acquired it in 1983. As part of the acquisition, Sanlando and Storer created a lifetime agreement for the benefit of Jacobs and other named beneficiaries to “receive and/or continue to receive free of charge each and every product, service, system or item of rental equipment whatsoever presently offered or offered in the future in the Central Florida area by Sanlando Cablevision” or its successor companies. As successor to that agreement, Spectrum provided Jacobs with free cable TV, home phone and high-speed internet services and related products since 2016. Jacobs’ account was “consistent” with those of other customers who received complimentary devices and services, but he wasn’t receiving all channels or the fastest internet speeds that Spectrum offered, nor was he receiving the mobile phones and wireless service that Spectrum offers paying customers. Jacobs sued after Spectrum refused his requests to receive all the channels and fastest internet speeds, plus the mobile phones and wireless service. Spectrum argued that cellphones, mobile service and levels of internet service are not referenced in Jacobs’ original agreement with Sanlando and Storer. Jacobs countered, and the court agreed, that the agreement was broad and inclusive, covering all items requested.

Verizon denies that its debt collection agency, CBE Customer Solutions, is entitled to any relief and asks the court to enter judgment in its favor, said Verizon’s answer Friday (docket 1:22-cv-08703) to CBE’s counterclaims (see 2211210034) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York. Verizon sued CBE to recover $6.1 million in damages and court costs associated with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act class-action settlement under an April 2014 master services agreement (MSA) stipulating that CBE indemnify Verizon for fees and costs that the carrier incurs "in defending any claims arising out of CBE's services" (see 2210140026). CBE countersued for unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith, alleging any negligence that mushroomed into a TCPA class action and settlement was of Verizon’s doing, not CBE’s. CBE’s counterclaims “are barred because Verizon has fulfilled all of its obligations under the MSA,” said the carrier. Verizon said its TCPA problems began after a CBE employee “negligently failed” to remove consumer Robin Breda from one of Verizon’s call lists. Breda began getting inundated with debt-collection calls from Verizon’s automated “voice response” system, even though she wasn't a Verizon customer. CBE countered that it had no control over “who, how or when Verizon’s automated system” calls individuals, and that Verizon, “at all times, controlled both the technology and methodology” for initiating the calls.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit consolidated as cross appeals two cases involving T-Mobile and the National Labor Relations Board, said a clerk’s order Thursday. In docket 22-1275 is T-Mobile’s petition for review of the NLRB’s Sept. 20 finding that the carrier violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act when it reprimanded a customer service representative in its Wichita call center for sending union-related emails to her co-workers while on the job (see 2211010038). In docket 22-1309 is NLRB’s cross-application for enforcement “in full” of its Sept. 20 order against T-Mobile. The NLRB ordered T-Mobile to cease and desist from promulgating rules in response to employees’ union activities and from telling employees that they may not send union-related emails to employees’ work email addresses.

U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams for Southern New York gave Hong Kong-based Jiakeshu Technology a Jan. 13 deadline to file any "additional materials" to support its petition to vacate an Aug. 4 arbitrator’s award in Amazon’s favor, said her order Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-10119). Case law governs that vacatur proceedings for arbitration awards must be treated as akin to a motion for summary judgment, said the order. Amazon’s response to Jiakeshu’s Jan. 13 filing is due Feb. 10, and Jiakeshu’s optional reply is due Feb. 24, it said. The arbitrator let Amazon keep $50,000 in Jiakeshu’s sales proceeds after Amazon deactivated Jiakeshu’s third-party store for improperly paying customers to submit positive reviews (see 2212010065).

Common carrier Avid Telecom sees itself as a “firewall” against illegal robocalling, but it has been victimized by “unsavory entities” like telecom software company TransNexus, motivated by profit or to “score points in the media,” alleged Avid in a defamation complaint Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-04829) in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta. Avid alleges TransNexus published a transcript of a Skype conversation Nov. 15 depicting one of the participants seeking to unlawfully mask illegal robocalls so they wouldn’t get flagged by federal investigatory agencies. But instead of identifying the actual Skype participant, TransNexus published a doctored version depicting one of the parties to be Avid CEO Michael Lansky, it said. “TransNexus’s doctored transcript was published on its blog, and then picked up and republished on numerous other platforms,” said Avid. “To be clear,” Lansky wasn't part of the Skype conversation, it said, yet the TransNexus blog labels Avid “as an illicit robocall company headed by a CEO who breaks the law.” Within days, Avid’s providers began citing the false depictions of Lansky as reason to “cut ties” with the company, said the lawsuit. Avid and Lansky “have no choice but to seek to correct this record and hold TransNexus accountable for its deliberately false publication,” said the complaint. It speculates TransNexus doctored the Skype transcript and published the false allegations about Lansky to drum up publicity and stimulate sales of its ClearIP and NexOSS software products, which are promoted as helping customers prevent robocalling. TransNexus didn’t comment Thursday.

Plaintiff Ramon Fontanez and defendant American International Industries settled allegations that American’s website is inaccessible to blind and visually impaired people in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, said a notice from Fontanez’s attorney Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-05583) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York (see 2211210087). “A settlement agreement is in the process of being finalized between the parties,” said the lawyer. Once it’s fully executed, and Fontanez has received the “consideration required,” the parties will ask that the case be dismissed and closed, he said. He asked the court to stay the action and adjourn all deadlines and conferences for 60 days.

A mediation conference in AT&T's challenge of Los Altos, California’s denial of 12 small-cell applications is set for Dec. 12, said an order Monday (docket 22-16432) from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. AT&T appealed the case to the 9th Circuit from the U.S. District Court for Northern California. The order also amended the case's briefing schedule, with the opening brief now due Jan. 23, the answering brief Feb. 22, and the final reply brief 21 days after service of the answering brief.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes for Middle Tennessee in Nashville rescheduled an initial case management telephone conference to Feb. 2 from Dec. 12 in a breach of implied warranty class action against Nissan North America over obsolete vehicle telematics systems, said her order Monday (docket 3:22-cv-00933). Nissan has until Jan. 23 to answer the complaint, and it would be “premature” to hold an initial case management conference before that deadline, said Holmes. Plaintiff George Schwarz, owner of a 2016 Nissan Maxima Platinum, sued the automaker Nov. 16, alleging on behalf of the proposed class that NissanConnect, Infiniti InTouch and Infiniti Connection roadside services were rendered inoperable after AT&T’s 3G phaseout in 2022 due to Nissan’s installation of obsolete telematics equipment in multiple lines of vehicles dating to the 2013 model year.