Plaintiff Allison White’s false-advertising claims against Ring, its parent Amazon and Home Depot “must be resolved in arbitration,” said the defendants Monday in a motion to compel (docket 2:22-cv-06909) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in Los Angeles. White’s Sept. 23 class action alleges the packaging, ads and marketing materials for Ring’s $399 Jobsite Security 5-Piece Starter Kit falsely represent to consumers that the kit, when used with an internet connection and Ring’s Protect Pro security subscription, will automatically call authorities when their motion sensors have been activated (see 2210090005). When purchasing the kit from Home Depot and the Protect Pro subscription from Ring, “White accepted broad arbitration agreements with each defendant,” said the motion. “White seeks to assert a litany of class claims” based on her belief that Ring “would provide a feature Ring never promised,” it said. “White’s claims rest solely on her misinterpretation of a Ring webpage and have no merit.” White “has no basis to avoid her arbitration agreements with Ring and Home Depot,” said the motion. “White, a licensed attorney and real estate broker, cannot show grounds to invalidate her repeated agreements to arbitrate this dispute.”

U.S. District Judge John Walter for Central California in Los Angeles denied Ring’s unopposed motion to extend by six weeks its deadline for answering the Sept. 23 false-advertising class action over its Jobsite Security 5-Piece Starter Kit (see 2211170049), said his order Thursday (docket 2:22-cv-06909). His denial was based on “no showing of good cause,” said the order. Ring and its co-defendants Amazon and Home Depot now face a Monday deadline for answering the complaint. They have said they expect to respond with either a motion to compel arbitration or a motion to dismiss.

The plaintiffs and defendants in the false advertising complaint against Ring agreed in a joint stipulation Wednesday (docket 2:22-cv-06909) to extend by six weeks to Jan. 5 the defendants’ deadline to answer the complaint. Plaintiff Alison White in her Sept. 23 class action in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles alleges that the packaging, ads and marketing materials associated with Ring’s $399 Jobsite Security 5-Piece Starter Kit falsely represent to consumers that the kit, when used in conjunction with an internet connection and Ring’s Pro Subscription with “24/7 professional monitoring” will automatically call authorities when their motion sensors have been detected (see 2210090005). Defendants Ring, its Amazon parent and Home Depot expect to answer the complaint with a motion to compel arbitration, or alternatively, a motion to dismiss, said the stipulation. White’s motion for class certification would be due 90 days after the court rules on the motion to compel arbitration or for dismissal, said the stipulation.

Raffi Kelechian, a plaintiff in one of the dozen or more fraud class actions arising from Samsung’s summertime data breach, supports “centralization” of all the cases in the Northern District of California under U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley in San Francisco, he told the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in a filing Tuesday (case number 3005). Kelechian supports Northern California as the venue because that’s where Samsung’s U.S. operations are based, he said. The Samsung Research America subsidiary is in Mountain View, California, and Samsung Electronics America is headquartered in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey. Though a group of plaintiffs has moved to consolidate the cases in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey, Kelechian said the Northern District of California “would be the best, most efficient and most streamlined forum.” His own case is pending in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. The plaintiffs are evenly divided into camps that support consolidating the cases in San Francisco or Newark. Samsung supports centralizing them in U.S. District Court for Nevada in Las Vegas as the most appropriate forum because it’s home to the first-filed class action (see 2211030006). Samsung is hinting strongly it will base its defenses on motions to compel arbitration because consumer account holders agreed in their terms and conditions not to bring disputes before a trial judge or jury.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation closed briefing Thursday on the Oct. 7 motion to transfer to the Northern District of California the dozen or more fraud class actions seeking relief from Samsung’s summertime data breach and consolidating them under U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley in San Francisco, said the clerk’s minute order (case 3055). Attorneys must notify the clerk promptly of potential “tag-along actions,” plus any development “that moots the motion or fully disposes of any action on the motion,” said the order. Lawyers in any potential tag-along action may file an “interested party” response but must do so promptly and no later than the Thursday before any hearing on the motion for transfer, it said. No hearing has been scheduled on the original Oct. 7 motion and the many filings since that support or oppose it. Plaintiffs in the multiple Samsung class actions filed in six jurisdictions are evenly split into camps that want the cases moved to the Northern California district in San Francisco or the New Jersey district in Newark. Samsung said its preference is for the cases to be consolidated and tried in U.S. District Court for Nevada in Las Vegas (see 2211030006).

Tammy Gutierrez, a plaintiff in one of the 13 data breach fraud class actions filed against Samsung, disagrees with those plaintiffs who argue that the Northern District of California would be the proper venue, she said in an “interested party response” Tuesday (case 3005). Agreeing the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation should consolidate the cases under a single judge, she supports “transfer and consolidation” of the cases to the U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Newark, she said, though her own complaint (docket 3:22-cv-05719) is pending in San Francisco. The plaintiffs are evenly split into camps that want the cases moved to San Francisco or Newark. Samsung wants the cases transferred to and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for Nevada in Las Vegas, or the Southern District for New York in Manhattan (see 2211030006).

Plaintiffs Naeem Seirafi and Shelby Holtzclaw support the motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to transfer all the Samsung data breach class actions to U.S. District Court for Northern California and consolidate them under a single judge, Jacqueline Scott Corley in San Francisco, said their response Tuesday (case 3005). The JPML docket shows 13 related class actions pending in six federal districts, it said. The lawsuits “are nearly identical, as all actions assert common factual allegations and involve overlapping claims and legal issues,” it said. Consolidating the cases in a single district “will promote judicial efficiency, and will avoid the risk of inconsistent and overlapping judgments,” it said. It rejects the arguments of several U.S. District of New Jersey plaintiffs to move all the cases to Newark instead of San Francisco (see 2210270003) because the Northern District of California has “significantly fewer pending civil cases” than Newark (11,248 vs. 63,299), it said. Transferring the cases to San Francisco “would not be a burden on the judicial system there,” it said.

DirecTV seeks expedited discovery and court permission to serve foreign entities with subpoenas via courier in its complaint to thwart a a global imposter fraud scheme (see 2211010049), said its motion Tuesday (docket 6:22-cv-00423) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas in Tyler. Expedited discovery is “appropriate” in this case, because nonparties such as LinkedIn, eBay, PayPal, Zelle, Authorize.Net, Elavon, Tango and Facebook “are likely in possession of information” pertinent to the imposter scheme, but “are under no obligation to preserve or share such information” with DirecTV, said the motion. DirecTV’s complaint alleged the perpetrators of the scheme connect and do business in Facebook groups, LinkedIn chats and on employment sites such as Upwork. Amid DirecTV’s investigative findings that the fraudsters operate through overseas call centers and foreign co-conspirators, DirecTV needs to serve subpoenas on foreign entities, including entities in Pakistan and call centers, domain registrars, hosting companies and internet service providers located outside the U.S., it said. When pursuing service in countries that are signatories to Hague Convention protocols, including Pakistan, nothing precludes sending judicial documents by postal channels directly to persons abroad, as long as the destination country doesn't object, it said.

Two more plaintiffs from among the dozen or so fraud class actions over Samsung’s summertime data breach support the motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer all the cases to U.S. District Court for Northern California and consolidate them under Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, said their response to the motion Thursday (case number 3005). John Bennett filed his class action against Samsung in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, and Jay Gelizon filed his in the 8th Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada. They’re likely the only cases filed so far in venues other than California and New Jersey. The complaints were subsequently removed to federal courts in Chicago and Las Vegas, respectively. Though a group of New Jersey plaintiffs have moved to consolidate the actions in U.S. District Court in Newark (see 2210260001), Bennett and Gelizon think the Northern District of California “would be the best, most efficient and most streamlined forum” for all the class actions, said their filing. One of their rationales for transferring the cases to San Francisco and consolidating them there under a single judge, they said, is that that’s where Samsung’s “operations are based.” Samsung corporately runs an R&D lab in Silicon Valley, but Samsung Electronics America is headquartered in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey.

The New Jersey plaintiffs in two more fraud class actions over Samsung’s summertime data breach support the motion to transfer all the cases to U.S. District Court in Newark and consolidating them under a single judge (see 2210260001), said their response Wednesday before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. New Jersey “is the transferee district best suited” to take on the MDL “because Samsung is headquartered there, relevant documents and witnesses will be found there, and it is where corporate decisions were ultimately made with regard to Samsung’s data security systems, procedures and practices, and response to the data breach,” said attorneys for Joseph Rollins, Alex Chandler and Seledia Serina. While Samsung’s data breach “may have affected consumers throughout the country, it was caused by the actions of Samsung’s employees who are located in the District of New Jersey,” they said.