T-Mobile seeks the dismissal of the class action in which five plaintiffs challenge the lawfulness of T-Mobile’s terms of use and their prohibitions against expressing negative comments online about the company or its goods and services (see 2401260042), said its motion Friday (docket 2:24-cv-00700) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. T-Mobile concurrently filed a motion to compel the pro se plaintiffs’ claims to arbitration. T-Mobile filed both motions at the same time because, while the plaintiffs’ arbitration agreements should be enforced, the plaintiffs’ claims “are so fundamentally flawed that they cannot survive regardless of the venue,” said the motion. “For the sake of expedience and efficiency,” the defendant sets forth all the reasons that the plaintiffs “fail to state a single viable claim for relief against T-Mobile,” it said. Whether the court grants the motion to dismiss or the motion to compel, “the result would be the same -- an end to this lawsuit in its entirety,” it said. The complaint alleges that because of the current power of the internet and social media platforms to publicize a company’s offerings of goods or services, T-Mobile has “a significant incentive to minimize” the negative publicity it receives, including in the form of negative online reviews and comments. While conducting substantial business with California consumers, alleges the complaint, the terms that T-Mobile imposes on its customers “clearly violate” Section 1670.8 of the California Civil Code.

Shalace Williams, administratrix of the estate of the late Darryl Williams, seeks compensatory and punitive damages against T-Mobile for Sprint’s negligent failure, while it was still an independent company, to comply with a criminal investigation that forced Daryl Williams to spend seven years in prison for a February 2013 robbery he didn’t commit, said her complaint Friday (docket 1:24-cv-02732) in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Brooklyn. T-Mobile completed its Sprint buy in 2020. In the February 2013 incident, four perpetrators, unknown to Williams, somehow got possession of his passcode for the Stop and Stor storage unit he rented in Middle Village, Queens, said the complaint. They then abducted and robbed a Stop and Stor employee and locked him inside that storage unit, it said. When police investigated, they arrested Williams for the crime because the storage unit was in his name, though he insisted he was at home in Brooklyn, more than 12 miles away, on his cellphone with his landlord, when the crime was being committed, said the complaint. Beginning in May 2013, the Queens district attorney and Williams’ Legal Aid lawyer both repeatedly subpoenaed Williams’ Sprint cellphone records, including cellsite data, to attempt to verify his claims of innocence, it said. Sprint repeatedly responded that the cellsite data had been destroyed, it said. The conviction ultimately was reversed and nullified, but only after Sprint finally produced the cellsite records of the February 2013 call that were in its “custody and control” the whole time, after years of denying that those records existed, it said. Had Sprint provided accurate information to the Legal Aid Society and the Queens DA, “those records would have proved plaintiff-decedent’s innocence without question,” said the complaint. Williams “did not by his own conduct cause or bring about his conviction,” it said. His conviction was caused by Sprint’s failure “to properly comply with the investigation” and produce Williams’ cellsite data “in response to multiple subpoenas,” it said.

Comcast’s brief in opposition to MaxLinear’s motion to dismiss Comcast's third amended complaint is due April 24, extended from April 17, said an order signed Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-04436) by U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein for Southern New York in Manhattan. MaxLinear’s reply brief in further support of its motion to dismiss is due May 8, said the order. Comcast’s lawsuit is “a thinly veiled attempt to game the judicial system, obtain potentially conflicting rulings, and waste the time and resources” of the court and the parties, said MaxLinear’s April 3 memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss (see 2404040031). The dispute began nearly a year ago when Comcast alleged that chipmaker MaxLinear breached its “contractual obligations” to support millions of the cable company's broadband gateways (see 2305300045). Comcast’s “latest set of grievances” concerns two related contracts, though it doesn’t allege “any actionable harm arising from those contracts,” said MaxLinear’s memorandum.

Ford objects to the “improper” plaintiffs’ motion for an advisory opinion for leave to amend their 3G telematics class action complaint and for an “indicative ruling” under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 62.1.1, said the automaker’s opposition Wednesday (docket 3:22-cv-01716) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego. The four plaintiffs allege that the 3G modems on Ford vehicles they bought or leased were rendered inoperable, as were the roadside assistance features that depended on those modems, after AT&T’s 3G phaseout in 2022. They allege the carmaker knew as early as 2019 that AT&T’s phaseout of the 3G network was inevitable and yet continued to manufacture vehicles with 3G modems. U.S. District Judge Michael Anello denied Ford’s motion to compel the plaintiffs’ claims to arbitration, and Ford is appealing that denial to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (see 2312040038). Ford’s Dec. 1 notice of appeal “divested the trial court of jurisdiction and automatically stayed further district court proceedings,” said its opposition. Despite that automatic stay, the plaintiffs seek to “circumvent resolution” of Ford’s appeal on the merits “by omitting their allegations that Ford’s authorized dealerships are agents of Ford,” it said. Such an amendment would be “futile,” it said. Principles of estoppel “would still permit consideration of the original as pleaded claims that were considered,” it said. Even if that weren’t the case, and even if the plaintiffs removed the allegation, “their causes of action require that some underlying agency relationship exist between Ford and its authorized dealerships,” it said. The plaintiffs’ claims for fraudulent omission, violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act and for breach of implied warranty “all require some underlying relationship” between Ford, the plaintiffs and the sales transaction with the authorized dealerships, it said. Ford’s appeal is based on the arguments made in its motion to compel arbitration, said its opposition. The carmaker argues that it may enforce the arbitration provisions as the alleged principal of the dealerships that countersigned the sales and lease contracts, it said. Ford also argues it may enforce the arbitration provisions as a third-party beneficiary of the lease contracts, and that it may enforce the arbitration provisions based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel, it said. The plaintiffs’ removal of agency allegations wouldn’t “moot the issues on appeal,” it said. Ford will meet and confer with the plaintiffs “so as to obviate the need to file a formal motion to enforce the appellate stay,” it said.

Keyvan Samini voluntarily dismissed his complaint against Apple in its entirety, said his notice of dismissal Wednesday (docket 8:24-cv-00249) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana. Samini, chief financial officer and acting general counsel of Navy contractor Mobix Labs, alleged that Apple contributed to the harm he suffered by not doing what it could within its "technological ability" to rectify the harm after John Does stole an Apple email account that Samini had controlled and used for more than 12 years (see 2402070049). Apple ultimately agreed to Samini’s request to block all external access to the account after he twice sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin Apple from restoring that access (see 2403050021).

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff for Southern New York in Manhattan signed the consent decree Wednesday (docket 1:20-cv-08668) that effectively resolves the money damages claims against defendants Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman for their roles in the robocall campaign to suppress Black citizens' mail-in votes in the run-up to the 2020 election (see 2404090022). The consent decree averts the jury trial on damages that was to have opened Monday. It obligates Wohl and Burkman to pay the plaintiffs $393,000 of a suspended $1 million penalty over roughly the next five years. Under the consent decree, their first $20,000 payment is due April 30. Another $30,000 installment is due Sept. 1 and an additional $55,000 tranche is due Dec. 31. Wohl and Burkman would then be obligated to pay $6,000 a month for the 48 months beginning March 1. If all the payments are made on time, the plaintiffs agree not to seek payment of the $607,000 suspended balance. Wohl and Burkman signed the consent decree Sunday, and the parties presented it to Rakoff during a telephone status conference Monday, where he vacated this week's deadlines for pretrial filings.

Plaintiff Linda Surrency and defendants Experian and the National Consumer Telecom & Utilities Exchange (NCTUE) have reached a settlement of Surrency’s Fair Credit Reporting Act claims, so her lawsuit is dismissed against those defendants only, said a text-only endorsed order issued Tuesday (docket 8:23-cv-02323) by U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle for Middle Florida in Tampa. The dismissal is subject to the right of any party within 60 days to submit a stipulated form of final order or move to vacate the dismissal for good cause, said the order. Surrency’s complaint alleged that AT&T, Equifax and the NCTUE were “plainly deficient” in their investigations of Surrency’s credit reporting dispute over identity theft (see 2310160035).

A jury trial in former President Donald Trump’s defamation suit against ABC, ABC News and Sunday host George Stephanopoulos (see 2403190059) is set for the two-week trial calendar beginning on April 7, 2025, said a scheduling order signed Tuesday (docket 1:24-cv-21050) by U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga for Southern Florida in Miami. April 29 is the parties’ deadline for picking a mediator and filing a proposed order scheduling that required mediation, said the order. Altonaga’s order referred all discovery matters in the case to U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisette Reid. The parties may consent to trial and final disposition by the magistrate judge, and Dec. 24 is their deadline for submitting a consent, it said. All discovery in the case, including expert discovery, is to be completed by Dec. 9, said the order. Trump alleges that Stephanopoulos repeatedly said on his Sunday ABC television show that multiple juries had found Trump liable for raping journalist E. Jean Carroll. In May, a federal jury in New York found Trump liable for sexually assaulting Carroll during a 1996 encounter in a New York department store but not liable for raping her. Trump is appealing that verdict.

Linda Surrency seeks an order compelling defendant AT&T to provide “complete answers” in discovery to her 10 interrogatories and 13 document requests, said her motion Tuesday (docket 8:23-cv-02323) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa. Surrency’s Fair Credit Reporting Act complaint alleges AT&T, Equifax and the National Consumer Telecom & Utilities Exchange were “plainly deficient” in their investigations of Surrency’s credit reporting dispute over identity theft (see 2310160035). Surrency learned that she was the victim of identity theft when she was informed that a credit reporting agency (CRA) was associating her with an AT&T account that was fraudulently opened in Texas under her name. In light of the undisputed facts and the plaintiff’s allegations, the "core factual issues" in this case pertain to how she “came to be associated with this fraudulent account,” why AT&T requested a consumer report about her and why the CRA defendants refused to stop reporting that the account belonged to her, said her memorandum in support of her motion to compel discovery. Surrency has issued discovery requests to AT&T regarding these “central factual issues,” but carrier “has refused to fully provide "responsive information and documents,” it said. AT&T has asserted “that it has virtually nothing to discover because the fraudulent account was actually owned by one of its corporate siblings,” it said. If true, this fact about the account's ownership “may change or limit” the scope of AT&T’s required responses, but it doesn’t “completely relieve it of any discovery obligation,” it said. The carrier has some information about this account that would permit Surrency “to begin to determine how and why the theft of her identity led to at least one CRA to report that she had an AT&T account, plus “how and why CRAs persisted in their reporting that she was liable on that account,” it said. AT&T’s explanations for why it has nothing to discover “actually demonstrate that it has at least some information and documents” that are responsive to Surrency's discovery requests, it said. She asks this court to compel AT&T “to provide them,” it said.

It’s clear AT&T doesn’t want to pay Core Communications for toll-free calls, but it was never because Core engaged in fraudulent or spoofed traffic, as AT&T alleged, said Core’s reply brief Wednesday (docket 23-3022) in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The truth is that AT&T doesn’t want to pay Core because from AT&T’s perspective, Core does little work, it said. Core’s appeal seeks to reverse the district court’s Oct. 13 summary judgment decision in AT&T’s favor (see 2310160018). The district court found that when purchasing toll-free calls from third parties that were destined for AT&T’s customers, Core didn’t provide its tariffed switched access services to AT&T and therefore couldn’t collect from AT&T its tariffed rates for that service. AT&T may regard Core as a laggard, but without “intermediary” telecom providers like Core, “there would be no practicable way for 8YY callers to connect with AT&T’s 8YY customers,” said Core’s reply. Without intermediaries like Core, “there would be no operable infrastructure for toll-free calling in the United States,” it said.