Verizon's motion for summary judgment in a breach of contract lawsuit (docket 1:22-cv-8703) brought against its debt collector, CBE Customer Solutions, is “ill-considered and meritless,” said CBE in a memorandum in opposition Friday in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan. Verizon filed a memorandum last month saying CBE should indemnify the carrier for fees and costs it incurs in defending claims arising from CBE’s services (see 2212200030). In 2016, CBE “negligently failed to remove a non-customer” from a Verizon call list it was hired to manage, leading to a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action against Verizon and a multimillion-dollar settlement. Verizon requested indemnification from CBE for its losses under the parties’ written agreement “but CBE refused,” prompting Verizon to file a lawsuit to seek enforcement of the indemnification provision, it said. CBE countersued for unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith, alleging any negligence that mushroomed into a TCPA class action and settlement was of Verizon’s doing, not CBE’s (see 2212140027). In its opposition Friday, CBE asserted Verizon made “premature and improper demands” for indemnity to “badger” CBE into underwriting the costs of Verizon’s “noncompliance” with the TCPA. On the counterclaim of unjust enrichment, CBE said, “When one party to a contract unjustly enriches itself at the expense of the other party and where such enrichment is outside the scope of their contract, the written agreement does not control, and a claim in quasi-contract exists.”

Rawnag Shaba, owner or operator of Bombshells Bar and Eats in Warren, Michigan, unlawfully intercepted and exhibited a boxing match in February and then closed a business when he learned G&G Closed Circuit Events, which owned exclusive nationwide rights to the match, planned to recover damages, alleges an amended complaint (docket 2:2023-cv-10031) filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan in Detroit. Plaintiff G&G alleges Shaba and Green Patio, doing business as Bombshells Bar and Eats, pirated the match between Carlos Castro and Luis Nery “willfully” and for commercial or private gain, citing violation of the Communications Act of 1934 and the Cable & Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act. The plaintiff also claimed violation of Michigan’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, which allows a creditor to reach assets a debtor has transferred to another person for the purpose of keeping them from being used to satisfy a debt. G&G alleged Green Patio closed its business after receiving notice of the piracy lawsuit and that it “exists only on paper.” The plaintiff is seeking statutory damages of $170,000 against the defendants, plus court costs, attorneys’ fees and further relief.

An initial pretrial conference is scheduled for March 22 in plaintiff Antonio Lewis’ fraud class action against Samsung that questions the durability of the Z Fold 3 smartphone, said a notice (docket 1:22-cv-10882) signed Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon for Southern New York. Samsung’s claim the Z Fold 3 can be folded and unfolded at least 200,000 times is based on “flawed” testing methodology and “not representative of real-world usage,” alleged the Dec. 26 complaint (see 2301030027).

Xfinity Mobile’s deadline is Tuesday for responding to Globalgurutech’s motion to dismiss XM’s handset trafficking complaint, said an order (docket 2:22-cv-01950) signed Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Susan Brnovich for Arizona in Phoenix. XM alleges the defendants and their co-conspirators exploit XM’s financial incentives to acquire XM phones through unlawful means, reselling the handsets at substantial profit (see 2211170061). Globalgurutech’s Dec. 20 motion to dismiss said XM’s unfair competition and unjust enrichment claims should be thrown out because Globalgurutech fairly negotiates a price for each phone it buys and pays the agreed-upon amount to the seller (see 2212210046).

Globalgurutech’s motion to strike paragraphs and exhibits from Xfinity Mobile’s handset trafficking complaint against the phone reseller on grounds they would prejudice a jury (see 2212210046) should be denied because those elements are relevant to XM's case, said XM's opposition (docket 2:22-cv-01950) filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for Arizona in Phoenix. The motion to strike was “premature” and the defendants failed to demonstrate prejudice, said XM. Globalgurutech argued in its motion to strike that evidence of illegal cellphone schemes involving other people and organizations were “immaterial as to whether these defendants have done anything unlawful,” said the plaintiff’s response, but this “is simply not true.” The defendants attempted to draw “arbitrary distinctions” among schemes based on the number of phones stolen or the number of individuals involved,” said the response, “but the modus operandi is the same: the fraudsters unlawfully acquire and re-sell phones and deprive those companies of the financial investment in those phones." Globalgurutech argued in its motion to strike that the plaintiff’s supporting exhibits included judgments involving unrelated parties with “completely different fact patterns.” The defendant’s motion cites allegations that Globalgurutech owner Jakob Zahara bought and sold 13 Xfinity phones vs. a criminal indictment of 101 individuals involved in a transnational cellphone-trafficking conspiracy involving 70,000 stolen phones. Xfinity’s complaint also had information about “unrelated matters” including a news article about the indictment of 10 people involved in counterfeit cellphone trafficking; a news release from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota regarding the Mustafa Family Crime Organization’s involvement in cellphone trafficking, identify theft and tax fraud; a Huffington Post article about global smartphone trafficking referencing armed robbery and the Hezbollah terrorist organization; and a CBS News article about the Department of Homeland Security raiding two small electronics stores in Detroit.

Apple’s decision not to package a power adapter with series 12 through 14 iPhones is a breach of contract and a breach of implied warranty, plus a violation of Illinois consumer fraud laws, alleged a Dec. 27 class action (docket 3:22-cv-03099) in U.S. District Court for Southern Illinois in East St. Louis. Previous versions of the iPhone included a power adapter, but beginning in 2020, the company stopped including adapters, claiming environmental benefits from foregoing the mining of precious metals used in their production and the reuse of customers’ adapters from previous purchases, the complaint said. Plaintiff Elizabeth Steines, who lives in Godfrey, Illinois, bought an iPhone between December 2021 and May 2022, expecting the iPhone to come with a charger required to use the device. Her most recent iPhone used a charger that wasn’t compatible with her current iPhone, so she was “forced to pay” about $30 for an additional charger at the T-Mobile store where she bought the phone or go without a charger until she was able to buy one, the complaint said. Apple could have taken other measures to promote environmental sustainability by adopting industry-standard USB-C chargers, “instead of rendering the Product non-functional unless an additional purchase was made,” said the plaintiff. As a result of “false and misleading representations and omissions,” the iPhone is sold for a price premium, “no less than $700” for the lowest price version, the plaintiff said, saying Apple “could have made chargers available for free to iPhone purchasers who request them.” The plaintiff intends to buy an iPhone again at the price indicated if given “assurances it comes with the necessary components to render it functional or if the price is reduced by the amount of the charger.” Steines is “unable to rely on the labeling” of not only iPhones but also other products requiring another item for use, “such as a remote control without batteries, because she is unsure whether she would be buying only part of what she expects,” said the complaint. The class action seeks injunctive relief to remove, correct or refrain from challenged practices, monetary awards and damages, plus costs and expenses. A group of Chinese students sued Apple for not supplying a power adapter and earphones with the iPhone 12, Vice reported in 2021. The class action is not related to enforcement activities in other countries related to similar allegations, said the complaint. The European Council approved a rule in October that will require mobile phones and other electronic devices sold in the EU to be equipped with a USB Type-C charging port by the end of 2024, leading to speculation that the next generation of iPhones will include USB-C charging ports.

Plaintiff Alison White in her false-advertising class action against defendants Ring and Home Depot (see 2212060047) estimates a jury trial would last 10 to 15 days, assuming both her proposed classes are certified by the court “as to all claims,” said a joint Rule 26(f) report Thursday (docket 2:22-cv-06909) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. She estimates four to five days for trial if the court does not certify either class, said the report. Ring and Home Depot anticipate a trial of White’s individual claims would take three to four days, and a trial of her individual and class claims would take five to seven days, it said. The parties agree “it is not feasible to set a trial start date as it is too early in the litigation and class certification is not yet determined,” said the report. White seeks to represent a national class of people, plus a subclass of people in California, who bought Ring’s Jobsite Security 5-Piece Starter Kit and a Ring Protect Pro subscription in the four years before she filed her complaint Sept. 23. White alleges that Ring and Home Deport falsely represent to consumers that the security kit, when properly configured, will automatically call the authorities if the system is breached by an intruder, when in fact the product is “not capable of this advertised functionality,” said the report. Ring and Home Depot defendants “categorically deny any wrongdoing or liability” arising out of White’s purchase of the security kit and Protect Pro subscription, “nor would certification of any consumer class be appropriate here,” said the report. White’s claims are “meritless” because, among other reasons, “she rests all her claims on her unreasonable misinterpretation of Ring’s website,” which makes clear that Ring never promised the automatic calling feature White alleges. An initial status conference is planned for June 9, said the report.

Defendants Ring and Home Depot sought an order Friday compelling all of plaintiff Alison White’s false-advertising class-action claims to arbitration, said their motion (docket 2:22-cv-06909) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. Should the court deny that motion, the defendants alternatively seek to dismiss White’s complaint for her failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted for violating California’s false-ad and unfair competition statutes, said their motion. The motion follows a joint notice Dec. 20 in which the sides reported reaching an impasse on their arbitration and dismissal disputes (see 2212210012). White contends Ring and Home Depot misrepresented in their ads and marketing materials that Ring’s Jobsite Security 5-Piece Starter Kit, when properly configured, will contact the authorities automatically if a home's security system is breached. White’s claims “rest solely on her misinterpretation of Ring webpages and have no merit,” said Friday’s motion. But “at the outset,” her claims “must be resolved in arbitration” because she “accepted broad arbitration agreements” when she bought the product, it said.

Attorneys for plaintiff Alison White met Dec. 16 via Zoom with lawyers for defendants Ring and Home Depot but were unable to resolve their dispute over whether White’s false advertising claims should be compelled to arbitration, said a joint statement of meet and confer filed Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-06909) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. The meet and confer took place under a standing order from U.S. District Judge John Walter, they said. White’s lawyer also disagreed with the defendants’ counsel on seeking dismissal of the case if their motion to compel arbitration fails, said the statement. White contends Ring and Home Depot misrepresented in their ads and marketing materials that Ring’s Jobsite Security 5-Piece Starter Kit, when properly configured, will contact the authorities automatically if a home's security system is breached (see 2212090048). Ring and Home Depot said White agreed in her terms and conditions when she bought the product to resolve any disputes with the companies through arbitration rather than through the courts.

Attorney Neil Gilman of Hunton Andrews will represent Samsung in Jan. 26 oral argument before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, said a notice he signed Tuesday (case number 3055). The panel is weighing motions to consolidate the various class actions arising from Samsung’s summertime data breach and transferring the cases to a single judge. Samsung’s preference to have the cases transferred to U.S. District Court for Nevada is unchanged, said Gilman. Its alternative preferred transferee venue is the Southern District of New York, he said. His notice listed 15 class actions pending against Samsung, including six in New Jersey, two in San Francisco, two in Chicago, and one each in New York, Las Vegas, Tampa, Los Angeles and Pittsburgh. The panel set a Jan. 3 deadline for attorneys to declare their intent to participate in oral argument or to waive participation (see 2212190025).