The parties in a fraud case involving consumer chargeback requests agreed that Global E-Trading and its officers Gary Cardone and Monica Eaton are permanently enjoined from providing chargeback mitigation services to any covered client, said a stipulated order Tuesday (docket 8:23-cv-00796) for permanent injunction, monetary and statutory relief and final judgment filed by the defendants and by the FTC and the Florida Department of Legal Affairs in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa. The FTC and Florida attorney general alleged in an April 12 complaint (see 2304130013) that the defendants violated Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by submitting misleading documentation in connection with disputing consumer chargeback requests on behalf of their clients, “ignoring red flags indicating that the documentation was misleading,” and effecting microtransactions that “artificially lowered a merchant’s overall Chargeback Rate by inflating the total number of transactions run through the merchant’s account.” Defendants are also enjoined from providing chargeback mitigation on behalf of themselves or others; assisting others in submitting documentation they should know is misleading or materially inaccurate or failing to disclose any information that Defendants know or should know is relevant and material; providing screenshots of webpages that are “materially different” from webpages consumers saw at the time of the transaction; and engaging in any prohibited tactics to avoid fraud and risk programs established by a financial institution, it said. Under the order, defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations; they admit facts necessary to establish jurisdiction, said the filing. Defendants waive any claim they may have under the Equal Access to Justice Act through the date of the judgment order and agree to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees, it said. Plaintiffs and defendants waive all rights to appeal, challenge or contest the validity of the judgment order, it said. The final judgment amount includes $100,000 for civil penalties and $50,000 for Florida’s attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiff Sergio Rodriguez’s Oct. 9 opposition to Best Buy’s Sept. 8 motion to compel his claims to arbitration (see 2310110054) confirms that Rodriguez “agreed to individual arbitration” when he registered for the My Best Buy loyalty program and used BestBuy.com to make two purchases, said Best Buy’s reply Tuesday (docket 8:23-cv-01194) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana in support of its motion to compel. Rodriguez’s July 3 fraud lawsuit against Best Buy and Samsung alleges the Samsung QLED 4K TV he bought in 2022 didn’t have the Xcelerator Turbo+, FreeSync and HDMI 2.1 features that were advertised. Rodriguez’s opposition “concedes he signed up for My Best Buy and concedes he made two online purchases,” said Best Buy’s reply. Before completing those transactions, Best Buy notified Rodriguez, in language “approved by other courts,” that by proceeding, he was agreeing to the My Best Buy terms and BestBuy.com terms that contained the arbitration provisions, it said. “Unable to escape these facts,” Rodriguez’s opposition “conflates actual knowledge with constructive knowledge,” it said. His opposition also cites “outdated law” to argue unconscionability, and it “cherry-picks language” to suggest that the arbitration agreement is “narrower” than it really is, it said. Those arguments “all fail,” it said. Best Buy “carried its burden” to show Rodriguez agreed to the terms, including an arbitration agreement, and that his opposition “provides nothing that would allow him to evade arbitration,” it said.

The X platform asserted 11 affirmative defenses and denied having received remaining invoices listed in a September breach of contract complaint filed by real estate advisory firm Cresa, said its answer Tuesday to the complaint (docket 3:23-cv-04642) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. X denied specified amounts are "due and owing" and said it's “unaware of Plaintiff obtaining the requisite approvals from X Corp. as required prior to payment." The suit alleges Twitter failed to pay Cresa for its advisory services after owner Elon Musk acquired it (see 2309120066) last year. Cresa breached its written agreement with X, thus excusing X from performing all of its obligations set forth in the contract, and barring Cresa “from obtaining any relief under it,” said X's answer. The defendant didn’t violate any express, implied or ostensible duties, obligations or responsibilities owing to Cresa, and the plaintiff’s claim is barred by the doctrines of estoppel and/or waiver and by the doctrine of unclean hands, it said. Cresa’s claims are barred, in whole or part, by its failure to mitigate its alleged damages, and it has suffered no damage or injury as a direct or proximate result of X’s actions alleged in the complaint, said the answer. Each purported cause of action in the complaint is barred because of the doctrine of “frustration of purpose,” the answer said. X's alleged duties as claimed in the complaint, if they existed, “have been excused in that the performance of said obligation(s) is and has been made impractical,” it said. X seeks a judgment in its favor and against Cresa, plus costs of the lawsuit.

T-Mobile for years has engaged in a “strategic litigation campaign” designed to “hamstring” WCO Spectrum’s “legitimate efforts” to buy educational broadband service (EBS) wireless spectrum licenses from nonprofit schools and colleges “desperate for cash infusions,” said WCO’s reply memorandum Friday (docket 2:23-cv-04347) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles in further support of its motion to stay discovery pending the court’s resolution of its motion to dismiss. T-Mobile alleges that WCO and multiple co-defendants conspired to defraud T-Mobile out of $10 million involving the EBS spectrum that the FCC customarily licenses to schools (see 2306030002). Now armed with the “supposed account” of an anonymous whistleblower who used to work for WCO, T-Mobile has brought “the overzealous defense of its spectrum monopoly” to this court, said WCO’s memorandum. “Having tired of T-Mobile’s incessant, aggressive, and intrusive efforts to discover its confidential business strategies and plans through discovery, WCO filed the instant motion requesting a protective order staying discovery” until the court rules on its motion to dismiss, it said. The court has “broad discretion to stay discovery” until it disposes of WCO’s motion to dismiss, it said. Neither party “has cited a single case in which a district court was reversed for staying discovery while a fully dispositive motion was pending,” it said. T-Mobile’s fraud theory against WCO is “inherently implausible,” it said. WCO’s motion to dismiss “will dispose of this matter entirely,” it said. Nothing in the 9th Circuit’s jurisprudence, or that of any other appellate court of Appeals, precludes the district court “from staying discovery until that motion is decided,” it said. Nothing certainly compels the court to permit discovery unless it’s convinced that T-Mobile “will be unable to state a claim for relief,” it said.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers for Northern California in Oakland granted in part and denied in part HP’s June 30 motion to dismiss the fraud class action involving allegedly defective laptop trackpads, said her signed order Wednesday (docket 4:23-cv-02114). Her order granted plaintiffs Justin and Gary Davis leave to amend their complaint by Nov. 22. The plaintiffs allege that defective trackpads in their HP Omen laptops rendered their computers completely unusable without an external mouse (see 2306220056). HP moved to dismiss for their failure to allege facts sufficient to support their individual claims for relief (see Ref:2307030008]). HP also contends the plaintiffs fail to allege facts showing they have Article III and statutory standing to challenge HP’s advertising of HP Omen laptops. Rogers’ order found that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring their misrepresentation claims or to represent a nationwide class, but they do have standing to pursue claims for models of the Omen laptop other than the ones they. Her order also found that the plaintiffs do have standing to seek injunctive relief. They can also bring an implied warranty claim as “third-party beneficiaries to the contracts between HP and the retailers who sold plaintiffs their laptops,” said the order. But they haven’t adequately pled “that they were third-party beneficiaries to that contract,” it said. “At this stage, plaintiffs can maintain their restitution and unjust enrichment claims,” said the order.

U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp for New Jersey in Trenton signed a consent order Monday (docket 3:23-cv-02680) accepting the terms of an agreement between the parties that the Oct. 9 amended complaint filed against SiriusXM by plaintiffs Robyn Posternock, Muriel Salters and Philip Munning doesn’t require a SiriusXM response separate from the motion to compel arbitration that SiriusXM has already filed. Consistent with that agreement, the plaintiff filed their opposition to SiriusXM’s motion to compel arbitration on Oct. 16, it said. SiriusXM will file its reply in further support of its motion to compel arbitration on Nov. 7 and there will be no separate response to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. The plaintiffs allege that SiriusXM falsely advertises its music plans at lower prices than it actually charges.

Plaintiff Joel Fink didn’t file an opposition by the Oct. 25 deadline to One Technologies’ Oct. 11 motion to dismiss his fraud complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction in California (see [Ref:2310120024[), said the defendant’s notice of non-opposition Monday (docket 3:23-cv-05086) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. One Technologies filed the notice in place of its reply brief that would have been due Wednesday, it said. It asked that the court deem Fink’s non-opposition as “his consent” to grant the motion and dismiss the complaint, it said. Fink alleges the consumer credit information company sent him at least 73 unsolicited and unlawful spam emails in violation of Section 17529.5 of the California Business and Professional Code.

Plaintiff Lisa Bodenburg’s fraud class action alleging that Apple delivers iCloud+ subscribers 5 GB less monthly cloud-storage capacity than they pay for (see 2308270001) was reassigned to U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson for Northern California in San Francisco, said a text-only clerk’s notice Monday (docket 3:23-cv-04409). Thompson immediately scheduled a Jan. 25 initial case management conference at 2 p.m. PST via video only, said the notice. “All pending motions will be taken off-calendar and must be re-noticed by the moving party for a new hearing” according to the judge’s available dates, it said. Those include Apple’s Oct. 20 motion to dismiss the case in which it asserted that Bodenburg’s complaint is based on “an implausible and strained misinterpretation” of Apple’s “unambiguous and accurate” public iCloud+ disclosures (see 2310230011). Thompson is the fifth judge assigned to the case since Bodenburg filed her complaint Aug. 25. The four previous judges all recused themselves, including three who did so on a single day (see 2310270033).

Evercode Infinite seeks a discovery stay pending resolution of its “contemporaneously” filed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint and its motion to strike the plaintiffs’ class allegations, said the company’s motion to stay discovery Friday (docket 1:23-cv-01582) in U.S. District Court for Colorado in Denver. Evercode is one of multiple defendants in a negligence class action in which 21 plaintiffs allege that “countless” user accounts of Atomic Wallet, the cryptocurrency exchange platform, were hacked June 3, resulting in the loss of more than $100 million in global crypto assets (see 2306220003). Evercode’s motion to dismiss seeks dismissal of the first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, 12(b)(5) for improper service of process and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, said the motion to stay discovery. Evercode’s motion to strike asks the court to strike the complaint’s class allegations under Rules 12(f) and 23(d)(1)(D) because the plaintiffs have failed to satisfy Rule 23, it said. In light of those “considerable threshold issues,” Evercode seeks a stay of discovery pending the court’s resolution of those two motions, it said. Evercode also asks that the discovery stay should also encompass the issuance of a scheduling order, because no case deadlines should be set until Evercode’s motions are resolved, it said. The decision to stay discovery is within the court’s discretion, and the five factors that courts “typically consider” in determining whether to stay discovery “weigh strongly” in Evercore’s favor, it said. A stay wouldn’t prejudice the plaintiffs, it said. Its motions to strike and to dismiss “raise jurisdictional issues and questions of law,” it said. The plaintiffs don’t need discovery “to properly respond,” it said. If the court denies Evercode’s motions, then the plaintiffs will be able to engage in discovery, it said. If the court grants the motions in part or in whole, then the case, the plaintiffs’ associated discovery efforts, “will be narrowed or dismissed entirely,” it said. The burden on Evercode is “significant,” said the motion. Two of Evercode’s bases for dismissal “implicate threshold issues of jurisdiction,” it said. As a foreign entity “already incurring significant costs in this action,” Evercode shouldn’t have to undergo discovery until the court “has determined whether it has jurisdiction over Evercode,” it said. Granting a stay also would preserve the court’s resources, “and allow for more efficient resolution of the claims,” it said. The motion to dismiss “stands to either narrow or dispose of the entire action, thus preventing unnecessary efforts” by the court, it said.

U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni for Southern New York in Manhattan ordered a discovery stay in the two consolidated fraud class actions against AudienceView Ticketing and UniversityTickets.com, pending her decision on the defendants’ forthcoming motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint, said her signed order Thursday. The defendants’ motion to dismiss is due Nov. 17, and the plaintiffs’ opposition is due Dec. 15, said the order. Caproni's July 17 order consolidated the two cases, both arising from the defendants’ massive data breach (see 2307260019). The order designated Jadyn Newman v. Audienceview Ticketing (docket 1:23-cv-03764) as the lead case. The other case is Richard Toledo v. AudienceView Ticketing (docket 1:23-cv-05626).