Venton Smith offers “vague protestations” based on a theory that his accounts incurred fraudulent charges and “unsubstantiated claims” that he opted out of arbitration agreements, said Citibank's reply Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-02804) in support of its motion to compel arbitration in a negligence lawsuit involving the 2019 Capital One data breach. The pro se plaintiff opposed Citibank’s motion to compel arbitration in July (see 2308280030). The June lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco (see 2306120045), alleges the data breach, in which an Amazon Web Services employee stole data affecting about 106 million customers, led to at least 12 of his accounts being fraudulently accessed to secure loans, merchandise and products totaling $92,300. In its reply, Citibank said Smith opened, used and made payments on his Citibank accounts, and he provided no evidence he rejected arbitration agreements. The plaintiff is “free to pursue his meritless claims and damages -- he must simply do so in arbitration,” it said. The California court previously said the arbitration provision for Citibank credit cards is “valid and enforceable,” the reply said, citing Ackerberg v. Citibank and Assi v. Citibank National Association.

U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes for Western Missouri in Kansas City granted Jeff Edwards' Aug. 8 motion to intervene as of right as an additional co-plaintiff in the multidistrict litigation against T-Mobile’s arising from the carrier’s 2022 data breach, said the judge’s text-only order Wednesday (docket 4:23-md-03073). Edwards is a current and longstanding T-Mobile customer “dating back to at least 2012,” said his pro se motion to intervene. As with all T-Mobile customers, Edwards relied on T-Mobile to keep his personal and business information “safe from any unauthorized use,” it said. T-Mobile didn’t use “reasonable security methods, procedures and practices required so as to preserve and protect the nature of the sensitive unencrypted information it was maintaining,” causing Edwards’ identity and sensitive information “to be exposed,” it said.

Plaintiff Hannah Lewis “unceremoniously dropped half her claims by footnote,” said Sony Friday in its reply memorandum (docket 4:23-cv-00177) in support of its motion to compel arbitration in U.S. District Court for Northern Florida in Tallahassee. Lewis, who alleges Sony denied coverage to Alpha 7 III camera customers who experienced shutter failure on the camera for claims submitted outside of the one-year-warranty period, introduced “new facts,” said the company. Her camera was purchased for Lewis’ business by her business partner and it was bought as an “open box” product from Best Buy for the discounted price of $1,253.99, not the “premium” price of about $2,000 as initially indicated. Her warranty claims depend on the terms of the camera’s limited warranty and preclude her from arguing she isn’t bound by the limited warranty under Florida law, said the memorandum. “Plaintiff cannot rely upon the Limited Warranty as the basis for these claims and simultaneously profess ignorance of its terms,” Sony said. Lewis called the warranty “unconscionable,” but that requires the court to consider whether terms were concealed or “buried in fine print,” and whether the party was afforded a “meaningful choice with regard to arbitration,” said the memorandum. The one-page warranty is “conspicuous” and uses boldface and capitalization to bring certain clauses, including the arbitration clause, to a customer's attention, it said. On her assertion the warranty was presented on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis, courts have recognized that “the purchaser of services [is] free to obtain such services elsewhere if he or she does not want to agree to a particular seller’s terms,” it said, citing Howse v. DirecTV. Lewis wasn't required to buy a Sony camera and “has not alleged that she lacked any reasonable alternative that prevented her from purchasing anything other than the camera at issue,” it said. It's also “undisputed” that the warranty provided a “clear mechanism to opt out of the arbitration clause and class action waiver,” Sony said.

“Any reasonable person” would conclude that five Intelsat defendants, including former Chairman David McGlade and Intelsat’s two largest shareholders, engaged in unlawful insider trading while in possession of materially nonpublic information, alleged lead plaintiff Walleye Group in its opening brief Friday (docket 23-15822) in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Walleye is seeking reversal of the district court’s April 26 dismissal of its second amended complaint. Walleye alleges the defendants sold more than $245 million of Intelsat stock the evening after they learned the FCC was going to reject Intelsat's “bet-the-company plan” for a private auction of satellite spectrum, which Intelsat previously believed the FCC would support (see 2305310058). Intelsat’s shares “collapsed” by 77% when the public found out about the FCC’s rejection, said Walleye’s opening brief. The defendants thereby avoided over $185 million in losses by selling their Intelsat stock in a late-evening fire sale, it said. As a result of the doomed deal, Intelsat filed for bankruptcy, it said. The case “involves one issue, and one issue alone” -- whether Walleye adequately alleged the scienter element of its insider trading claims, the brief said. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California “not only incorrectly weighed the collective inferences of scienter present here, but also improperly weighed such inferences through a clouded lens,” it said.

Orange County, Florida, resident Rebecca Kineman reached a settlement with Verizon Wireless in a fraud lawsuit, said a Friday notice (docket 6:23-cv-01437) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Orlando. Also named in the suit are Fair Collections & Outsourcing (FCO) and Equifax, Experian and TransUnion credit reporting agencies. Kineman alleges negligence and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting and Fair Debt Collection Practices acts. The plaintiff alleged Verizon furnished inaccurate information about her to the credit reporting agencies. FCO also furnished inaccurate information about Kineman to the CRAs about an apartment lease she never applied for, it said. Due to the false reports, Kineman was denied a loan she applied for early this year, said the complaint.

Plaintiffs Ayana Stevenson, David Ambrose and Lisa Ramirez admit they accepted and agreed to the SiriusXM customer agreement, and they didn’t opt out of the arbitration agreement contained within it, said SiriusXM’s reply Friday (docket 3:23-cv-02367) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco in support of its July 24 motion to compel the plaintiffs’ claims to arbitration (see 2307250031). SiriusXM is alleged to have falsely advertised its music plans at lower prices than it actually charges. The plaintiffs also admit their claims fall within the scope of the arbitration clause, said SiriusXM’s reply. They “now nonetheless seek to escape the arbitration agreement to which they indisputably agreed by challenging two of its provisions as invalid,” it said: “Those efforts fail.” The plaintiffs’ claim the arbitration agreement unlawfully prohibits those who opt out of arbitration from seeking class action relief in court, but “this is pure distraction,” said the reply. The plaintiffs didn’t opt out of arbitration and can’t invalidate the customer agreement “because of how it might affect others,” it said. The plaintiffs then argue the customer agreement impermissibly prohibits them from seeking public injunctive relief in either court or arbitration, it said. But the parties agreed an arbitrator would decide that question, and the plaintiffs “are mistaken about it anyway,” it said. Under binding 9th Circuit precedent, they may request public injunctive relief in arbitration without running afoul of the customer agreement’s restrictions, it said. In any event, the plaintiffs “lack standing to pursue public injunctive relief, and all of their claims other than their request for such relief must be sent to arbitration no matter what the court decides about that unusual remedy,” it said. The court should grant SiriusXM’s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in this court, it said.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero for Southern New York in Manhattan adjourned to Jan. 29 at 9 a.m. from Dec. 11 the five-day jury trial of defendants Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman for their roles in the robocall campaign to suppress Black citizens' mail-in votes in the 2020 election, said his signed order Thursday (docket 1:20-cv-08668). The final pretrial conference, previously scheduled for Dec. 8, is also adjourned to Jan. 26 at 10 a.m., said his order. He gave no reasons for the seven-week adjournment. Marrero previously granted summary judgment against Wohl and Burkman on the robocall allegations (see 2303090003). The jury trial will decide on the scope of relief sought, including damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

Xfinity Mobile and GlobalguruTech (GGT), parties in a phone trafficking fraud case, were unable to reach agreement on the defendants’ motion to quash Xfinity Mobile’s subpoenas to six GGT business contacts and for protective order, said a certificate of personal consultation (docket 2:22-cv-01950) filed Wednesday by defense counsel Adam Buck of Radix Law in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix. Buck said he outlined defendants’ concerns with six new subpoenas, in writing, with Xfinity’s counsel, Gail Podolsky of Carlton Fields, Aug. 22 and Aug. 25, followed by a conference call Monday. Tuesday, plaintiffs GGT and owner Jakob Zahara filed a third motion to quash Xfinity’s subpoenas to GGT business contacts and for a protective order, calling the request “overbroad.” The request would include “irrelevant documents relating to any cell phone transaction” and isn’t limited to Xfinity products, said GGT's motion. In its November complaint, Xfinity alleged GGT and Zahara fraudulently sell Xfinity Mobile phones “in bulk” (see 2211300025). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and the court dismissed Xfinity’s conspiracy and trademark claims, but plaintiffs reasserted the two claims in a July 7 amended complaint; defendants responded with a second motion to dismiss. Before the court ruled on the second motion to dismiss, Xfinity “issued a barrage of 18 subpoenas in a six-week period which is just the beginning of the number of subpoenas Plaintiffs intend to issue in this case,” said GGT. Plaintiffs are seeking the “same overbroad and irrelevant information about all transactions instead of limiting their discovery to Xfinity phones,” as alleged in their amended complaint, it said. Xfinity “refused” defendants’ repeated requests to voluntarily narrow the scope of discovery, “but the subpoenas keep coming with the same overly broad requests,” it said. Carlton Fields has represented “every large cell phone carrier” in the U.S. and filed similar lawsuits on their behalf over the years, said GGT's motion. “It appears Plaintiffs are seeking overbroad and irrelevant discovery that includes all types of cell phones to share with the other carriers who can then use the information to sue these Defendants or other small business owners to try to shut them down,” it said.

Plaintiffs in a fraud class action over SiriusXM pricing policies set a briefing schedule extending the time for them to respond to SiriusXM’s motion to compel arbitration from Friday to Oct. 16, said a Wednesday consent order (docket 3:23-cv-02680) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Trenton. Plaintiffs Robyn Posternock, Muriel Salters and Philip Munning's opposition to Sirius XM’s motion to compel arbitration is due Oct. 16, Sirius’ reply Nov. 7. The complaint alleges SiriusXM falsely advertises its music plans at lower prices than it actually charges.

U.S. District Judge David Carter for Central California in Santa Ana set a Sept. 8 deadline for defendants Samsung and Best Buy to file their anticipated motions to compel plaintiff Sergio Rodriguez’s fraud claims to arbitration, said Carter’s signed order Wednesday (docket 8:23-cv-01194). The deadline for any further response to the Rodriguez’s complaint, if necessary, is extended until 21 days after the court decides the motions to compel, said the order. Rodriguez’s July 3 class action alleges Samsung and Best Buy falsely represented that Samsung’s QLED TVs have qualities, characteristics and functionalities they don’t have, including motion-smoothing and FreeSync, a feature that’s said to render smoother animation and game play (see 2307060011).