Plaintiffs Layer Zero and David Hudson dismissed without prejudice their fraud complaint against Pollen Mobile and co-founders Anthony Levandowski and Christian Kurasek, said their notice of dismissal Friday (docket 3:23-cv-04023) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. Pollen created a decentralized wireless network in early 2022, which allowed people to create wireless network coverage using their own antennas and wired internet connections. To help seed the market, the company sold wireless providers radio equipment in exchange for money but paid them in Pollen Coin, “a crypto token that Pollen minted from thin air and which it shortly thereafter sold to investors for cash as well,” said the August complaint (see 2308100040). Layer Zero brought the case on behalf of itself and all other buyers of wireless equipment from Pollen “to rescind those sales or for rescissory damages” under federal and California securities laws. Hudson sued on behalf of himself and all other Pollen Mobile holders to redeem his gift certificates and for actual and statutory damages under federal and California gift card laws and the California Unfair Competition Law.

Plaintiff Sue Harmon sues under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act to hold Lenovo accountable for the smart clock with the defective LED screen she bought from Amazon (see 2305150043), but she doesn’t identify any false representations by Lenovo "that the smart clock’s display would never malfunction or potentially need repairs,” said Lenovo’s motion to dismiss Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-01643) in U.S. District Court for Southern Illinois in East St. Louis. Harmon doesn’t claim “that she ever contacted the third-party seller or Lenovo to seek repairs or replacement,” it said. “Instead, she filed a class action lawsuit,” it said. It’s “a fact of life” that electronics products “may break and need to be fixed,” said Lenovo. In the absence of a promise that a feature would always work, which Harmon doesn’t allege that Lenovo or anyone else made to her, a malfunction can’t “give rise to a consumer fraud claim,” it said. Federal judges have told Harmon’s attorneys at Sheehan & Associates “time and again that the types of allegations pleaded here simply do not state a valid claim upon which courts may grant relief,” it said. Harmon’s complaint includes several causes of action that Illinois courts “have rejected universally” when those attorneys have pleaded them, it said. The business of Sheehan & Associates “is to file putative class actions with unsupportable theories and hope defendants will pay the firm to avoid the costs of moving to dismiss,” said Lenovo. Harmon’s complaint is the fourth that Sheehan & Associates has filed against Lenovo since November, none of which have had merit, it said. Each time Sheehan & Associates has attempted claims involving electronics products, its claims “have never survived a motion to dismiss,” it said. The court should dismiss Harmon’s complaint against Lenovo in its entirety, it said. The court also should consider an order requiring Sheehan & Associates to show cause why the firm shouldn’t be sanctioned “for abuse of the court system and the class action device,” it said. The law firm didn't respond to email requests for comment Friday.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu for Northern California in Oakland ordered plaintiff Helen Jia to show cause by Thursday why she failed to respond to defendant Weee’s Aug. 28 motion to dismiss her fraud complaint, said Ryu signed Sept. 13 order (docket 4:23-cv-02314). Jia alleges that security failures leading to a data breach at Weee, which bills itself as America's largest online Asian supermarket, allowed hackers to steal personal and financial data from 1.1 million customers, targeting many, like Jia, who are Chinese immigrants (see 2305120011). Jia’s response in opposition to Weee’s motion to dismiss was due Sept. 11, but none was received, said Ryu’s order. Jia alternatively has until Thursday to file a statement of nonopposition to the motion as required by Civil Local Rule 7-3(b), it said. The order to show cause doesn’t constitute “permission to file a late opposition,” it said. The Oct. 12 hearing on Weee's motion to dismiss is vacated, and a new hearing “shall be noticed by the court if necessary,” said the order. If Jia doesn’t respond by Thursday, Weee’s motion to dismiss may be granted, “or the case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute,” it said.

Any foreseeable and unreasonable risk of personal injury or death that’s the result of a personal injury lawsuit against Amazon was a risk “Amazon did not create and/or could not reduce or eliminate,” said the defendant’s answer (docket 1:23-cv-011120) to a July negligence lawsuit (see 2307260069) in U.S. District Court for Eastern California in Fresno. Plaintiff Joanne Knupp brought the suit on behalf of her minor child, L.K., who allegedly swallowed a button battery, purchased on Amazon, that fell out of a color-changing LED light remote control; the child experienced “extreme pain and suffering” as a result, undergoing 14 surgeries to remove the battery and address organ damage, said the complaint. Knupp’s claims of loss, damage, injury, harm, expense, diminution or deprivation “may have been caused in whole or in part by” her failure to exercise reasonable care and to mitigate damages," said Amazon. Plaintiffs’ damages, if any, were caused by the “acts and omissions of others over whom Amazon had no control or right of control," it said. Amazon does not now know the identity of nonparties that may have contributed to plaintiffs’ alleged damages and reserves the right to identify such nonparties after they become known, it said. Based on the state of scientific, medical and technological knowledge at the time the plaintiff used the device, the product was “reasonably safe” for normal and foreseeable use and complied with all applicable industry standards, Amazon said. The plaintiff “may have misused, abused, altered, and/or improperly maintained, and/or used the product in a manner other than it was intended to be used, and disregarded the warnings, instructions, and directions for the product’s use,” Amazon said.

FunPlus International’s deadline is Oct. 25 for filing its motion to dismiss the three consolidated class actions that allege the Swiss video game developer and publisher falsely advertised price discounts for in-game purchases and engaged in other and unfair business practices involving its Guns of Glory: Lost Island mobile game app, said an order signed Wednesday (docket 4:22-cv-05023) by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers for Northern California in Oakland. The three plaintiffs in the consolidated class action have until Dec. 20 to file a joint opposition to the motion to dismiss, said the order. The FunPlus reply in support of the motion is due Feb. 2, it said. A hearing on the motion to dismiss is set for Feb. 20 at 2 p.m. PST, it said.

U.S. District Judge Anne Conway dismissed defendant Verizon without prejudice from a July fraud complaint that also names Equifax, Experian, Trans Union and Fair Collections & Outsourcing, said her Monday order (docket 6:23-cv-01437) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Orlando. Plaintiff Rebecca Kineman reached a settlement with Verizon this month (see 2309050006) in a case alleging Verizon furnished inaccurate information about her to credit reporting agencies. Kineman's negligence and Fair Credit Reporting and Fair Debt Collection Practices acts claims remain against Fair Collections & Outsourcing, Equifax, Experian and TransUnion.

Plaintiffs Wendy Booker and Francis Mascaro and defendant Goodwill Industries of Greater New York and Northern New Jersey seek a temporary stay in their case pending mediation, said their joint motion Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-04764) in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Brooklyn. Booker and Mascaro allege in their June 26 class action that Goodwill kept them and other data breach victims in the dark for seven months (see 2306270002). After Booker and Mascaro filed their complaint, the parties “began discussing a possible early resolution and they recently agreed upon a mediator and date,” said their joint motion. The matter is scheduled to be mediated Nov. 10 via videoconference by retired 11th Circuit Judge John Thornton, now with JAMS, it said. Nov. 10 was “the earliest available date” that worked for the judge and the parties and their counsel, it said. To conserve judicial resources, the parties asked that the case, and all litigation deadlines, including Goodwill’s Sept. 18 deadline to answer the complaint, be temporarily stayed until after the mediation date, it said. The parties propose to file a joint status report after the mediation date to advise the court on whether the mediation was successful, plus whether additional time is needed and proposed next steps, it said. “Because cases of this complexity often are not resolved in a single day of mediation,” the parties propose to submit this joint status report by Nov. 22, it said.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Reid Neureiter recommended that Google’s motion to compel arbitration in a fraud case be granted, said a Tuesday filing (docket 1:23-cv-01022) in U.S. District Court for Colorado in Denver. The court heard argument from the parties July 27. Plaintiff Steven Nichols alleged Google advertises that Pixel 4a, 5 and 5a phones are capable of accessing 5G networks but that a recent software update renders the phone unable to access 5G networks, said Neureiter’s report and recommendation. Nichols sued for breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment. Google argued that Nichols agreed in the phone’s setup process to arbitrate all disputes and that the case can’t proceed in federal court. Nichols accepted the arbitration agreement during setup of his first Pixel 5 in 2020, then again in 2022 when setting up second and third Pixel 5 phones, and he did not opt out of the arbitration agreement, said the report. Nichols contended that the legal terms contained ambiguous language, making it unclear whether he was opting in or out of arbitration by hitting “I accept” and that opt-out instructions were buried deep within the arbitration agreement; Neureiter called his arguments “unpersuasive.” Nichols assented to the arbitration agreement twice, the judge said: when he clicked “I accept” and when he did not timely opt out. Neureiter called the arbitration agreement “relatively short, with only eleven paragraphs over three pages,” saying it “plainly sets forth the opt-out procedure.” The court found that Google’s arbitration agreement is “valid and enforceable,” and because Nichols’ claims are within the scope of the agreement, he must be compelled to arbitrate.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria for Northern California in San Francisco granted an administrative motion relating a more recently filed action, Bax v. Western Digital (docket 5:23-cv-04543), to a case previously assigned to him, Krum v. Western Digital (docket 3:23-cv-04152), said the judge’s signed order Wednesday. The plaintiffs in both class actions allege that Western Digital sold them multiple models of external and portable solid-state drives, including those under the SanDisk brand, that contain a defect that causes customers to lose all of their stored data (see 2308180004). Similar fraud class actions have recently been piling up in the Northern District of California (see 2308240026).

Defendant GlobalguruTech’s (GGT) latest motion to quash six subpoenas to GGT business contacts and for protective order is another attempt to “stonewall Xfinity Mobile’s discovery efforts,” said Xfinity’s opposition response Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-01950) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix. In August, GGT and owner Jakob Zahara filed a third motion to quash Xfinity’s subpoenas, calling the request “overbroad” (see 2308310042); that argument fails as a matter of law, Xfinity said. Defendants have objected to every subpoena Xfinity has sent in the litigation, and rather than correct procedural and substantive deficiencies addressed in Xfinity Mobile’s opposition to their first and second motions to quash, defendants “filed a virtually identical third motion to quash,” it said. The latest subpoenas were sent to companies that conducted business with GGT “and are likely handset traffickers,” Xfinity said: “Defendants are attempting to create a discovery dispute where none exists in order to delay discovery and vastly increase Xfinity Mobile’s litigation costs.” Information sought in the subpoenas will identify entities that advertise, buy, ship, sell or unlock handsets and security codes with GGT; quantify Xfinity’s damages, including GGT’s gross profits and punitive damages; and uncover additional details about the "scheme," said the response. GGT’s motion to quash should be denied because it was filed in the wrong district, defendants don’t have standing to challenge the subpoenas and failed to show need for a protective order, and the subpoenas seek information that is “directly relevant” to Xfinity’s claims and damages and will help identify GGT’s “co-conspirators,” it said. Xfinity's Nov. 16 complaint alleges defendants and their co-conspirators are handset traffickers who exploit financial incentives to acquire phones by using various unlawful methods to circumvent the procedures put in place to protect Xfinity Mobile and its legitimate customers -- and then resell the phones for substantial profit.