U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni for Southern New York in Manhattan signed an order Tuesday appointing Kiley Grombacher of Bradley/Grombacher and Brian Murray of Glancy Prongay as co-lead counsel representing the plaintiffs in the two consolidated fraud class actions against AudienceView Ticketing and UniversityTickets.com. Caproni's July 17 order consolidated the cases, both arising from the defendants’ massive data breach. 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).

Plaintiffs Ayana Stevenson, David Ambrose and Lisa Ramirez entered into subscriber agreements with SiriusXM in which they agreed to resolve any disputes with the company “informally” or through binding arbitration, said SiriusXM’s motion Monday (docket 3:23-cv-02367) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco to compel their claims to arbitration. Their class action, the first of three filed against the company over several weeks, alleges SiriusXM falsely advertises its music plans at lower prices than it actually charges (see 2305160038). Despite their “straightforward agreement” to resolve their disputes through arbitration, plaintiffs Stevenson, Ambrose and Ramirez sued SiriusXM, “complaining about the company’s automatic subscription renewal practices and the alleged failure to sufficiently disclose the existence and nature” of SiriusXM’s U.S. music royalty fee, said the motion to compel. The plaintiffs “should be held to their promises,” it said. There can be no doubt the plaintiffs are bound by their customer agreements, said the motion to compel. All of them “expressly clicked buttons making clear that they agreed to its terms,” it said. All also continued using SiriusXM’s service “while being repeatedly told that, by doing so, they agreed to be bound” by their customer agreements, it said. “There can also be no doubt that their claims here fall within the scope of their promise to arbitrate,” it said. Though the plaintiffs “apparently intend to try to dodge arbitration by seeking public injunctive relief, that attempt must fail,” said the motion to compel. The arbitration agreement “commits gateway questions about enforceability to the arbitrator,” it said. Nothing in the arbitration agreement “precludes the arbitrator from awarding public injunctive relief if appropriate and if plaintiffs have standing to seek it,” it said.

Samsung’s motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint in the multidistrict litigation arising from last summer’s data breach would be due Aug. 11, under a stipulation and proposed order Monday (docket 1:23-md-03055) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Camden. The plaintiffs would file their opposition to the motion to dismiss by Sept. 22, and Samsung’s reply would be due Oct. 20, said the stipulation. The amended consolidated complaint the plaintiffs filed July 14 cut their 362-page previous complaint to 283 pages and chopped the claims count to 61 from 97 (see 2307170059).

The U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan should deny the petition of former Amazon third-party seller Longyan Junkai Information Technology to vacate an arbitration award in Amazon’s favor and grant Amazon’s cross-motion to confirm that award, said Amazon’s memorandum of law Friday (docket 1:23-cv-04869). Junkai seeks recovery of $461,000 in sales proceeds that Amazon seized when it deactivated the seller’s online store on allegations it sold counterfeit goods (see 2306270041). Junkai improperly seeks “to relitigate the merits of its failed claims,” said the memorandum. It asks the court to “toss aside” the arbitrator’s “reasoned” award and “summarily order” Amazon to pay Junkai funds to which the arbitrator correctly ruled Junkai “had no contractual right,” said Amazon. Junkai falls “woefully short” of establishing any basis for vacatur under the Federal Arbitration Act, it said: “Junkai fails to even cite the relevant FAA standard, much less establish any of its strict and exacting grounds for vacating an award.”

Citibank, Best Buy and Macy’s moved the court to compel plaintiff Venton Smith to arbitrate his fraud lawsuit against numerous banks, retailers and credit reporting agencies on an individual basis and to stay the instant action pending the outcome of arbitration proceedings, said their Friday motion to compel (docket 3:23-cv-02804) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. Smith claimed in his pro se suit involving the 2019 Capital One data breach, in which an Amazon Web Services employee stole data affecting about 106 million customers, that at least 12 of his accounts were fraudulently accessed to secure loans, merchandise and products totaling $92,300. Defendants' motion is made on the grounds that a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties that encompasses Smith’s claims; Smith must arbitrate his claims as required by the arbitration agreement; and the instant action should be stayed pending completion of the arbitration, it said. Smith claims his Citibank, Best Buy and Macy’s credit accounts were fraudulently accessed from November 2019 to December 2020 to purchase unknown merchandise (see 2307140038). He alleges Citibank “failed to conduct a reasonable investigation with respect to the disputed information” and furnished inaccurate information to consumer reporting agencies. As a result, Smith suffered substantial harm, including “damaged creditworthiness, ability to ascertain employment, housing and emotional distress.” Defendant Equifax reached a settlement with Smith this month (see 2307140038).

Defendant GlobalguruTech (GGT) moved the court to dismiss four counts of Xfinity Mobile’s amended fraud complaint against the cellphone reseller for failing to “cure the deficiencies previously identified,” said its Friday motion (docket 2:22-cv-01950) in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix. In June, the court granted in part GGT's motion to dismiss and dismissed, without prejudice, counts four, 10, 11 and 12, it noted. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint July 7, reasserting the counts “with very few changes,” said the motion. Xfinity Mobile et al.’s November complaint alleges defendants SellLocked.com, its affiliate Guru Holdings, and their owner, Jakob Zahara, together with their co-conspirators, are handset traffickers who exploit XM’s financial incentives to acquire phones using unlawful methods to circumvent the policies and procedures put in place to protect Xfinity and its legitimate customers, then resell the phones for a substantial profit. Plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claim fails because the amended complaint contains insufficient facts to support a conspiracy; Zahara and his LLCs are still the only named defendants, “and Mr. Zahara cannot have a conspiracy with himself,” the motion said. Trademark infringement claims fail because GGT’s use of the Xfinity logo “still falls within the parameters of nominative fair use,” it said.

U.S. District Judge Robert Payne for Eastern Virginia in Richmond denied Activision Blizzard’s motion to dismiss or transfer a fraud class action, saying the applicable analysis is different depending on whether dismissal is sought pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or to the Federal Arbitration Act. The motion to dismiss or transfer is denied without prejudice to the filing of separate motions and supporting memoranda “so that analysis can be accomplished in perspective of the facts and law applicable to each motion,” Payne said in an order Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-00314). The judge ordered Activision to file its answer and any motions concerning the complaint by Aug. 1. Plaintiff Sorina Montoya alleges the gaming company and King.com engaged in deceptive practices in a March-April Candy Crush mobile game tournament in which she spent over $3,000 on in-app purchases in an effort to win advertised prizes.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant for Southern California in San Diego granted the parties’ joint request for a unified briefing schedule on the three motions from defendants Stratics Networks, Atlas Investment Ventures and Ace Business Solutions to dismiss the FTC’s Feb. 16 robocall complaint (see 2302170032), said her signed order Tuesday (docket 3:23-cv-00313). The FTC’s deadline is Aug. 23 for filing a single combined brief in opposition to the three motions that will be limited to 75 pages, said the order. The defendants will have until Sept. 27 to file individual replies, it said. DOJ sued on the FTC’s behalf to stop a network of companies and individuals allegedly responsible for delivering “tens of millions” of unwanted VoIP and ringless voicemail phony debt service robocalls to consumers nationwide.

The jury trial of former AT&T Illinois President Paul La Schiazza on bribery and racketeering charges will open Sept. 9, 2024, and is expected to last 13 days, said a docket entry notification Tuesday (docket 1:22-cr-00520) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. La Schiazza pleaded not guilty Oct. 21 to charges in an Oct. 12 grand jury indictment that he authorized nine $2,500 monthly payments, totaling $22,500, to a close ally of former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D) for a no-show job (see 2302160048). Madigan in return successfully pushed through legislation backed by La Schiazza making it easier for AT&T to terminate its costly carrier of last resort obligation to continue providing landline services to Illinois residents, said the indictment.

U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams for Southern New York in Manhattan should deny the petition of former Amazon third-party seller Jiakeshu Technology to vacate an arbitration award in Amazon’s favor and grant Amazon’s cross-motion to confirm that award, said Amazon’s memorandum of law Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-10119) in support of ts cross-motion. An arbitrator ruled last summer that Amazon could keep $50,000 in Jiakeshu sales proceeds that Amazon seized after it deactivated the third-party store for paying customers to submit fake positive reviews. Abrams on June 21 denied Jiakeshu’s motion to remand to New York Supreme Court its petition to vacate that award (see 2306220019). Jiakeshu “abused” Amazon’s trust when it engaged in “deceptive conduct and breached its contractual promises,” said the memorandum. The arbitrator properly said Amazon had a contractual right to suspend Jiakeshu’s account and to withhold about two weeks’ worth of sales proceeds, “as expressly authorized by parties’ governing contract,” it said. Jiakeshu now “improperly seeks to relitigate the merits of its failed claims,” it said. It asks the court to “toss aside” the arbitrator’s “reasoned” award and summarily order Amazon to pay Jiakeshu funds to which the arbitrator correctly ruled the seller “had no contractual right,” it said. Jiakeshu falls “woefully short of establishing any basis for vacatur under the Federal Arbitration Act,” it said.