T-Mobile moved to strike “improper arguments made for the first time” in the March 13 reply brief of plaintiffs Craigville Telephone and Consolidated Telephone in support of a special master to oversee discovery in their fake ringtones case against the carrier (see 2303140034), in a motion Monday (docket 1:19-cv-07190) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. T-Mobile, in the alternative, seeks leave to file a sur reply to address the new arguments, it said. The plaintiffs, in their reply brief, “specifically advocate for a special master” to oversee call data record discovery, said T-Mobile’s motion. The reply brief contains pages of “substantive arguments and false and misleading characterizations of matters supposedly related to the production of CDRs” not included in their original motion for a special master, it said. The new arguments are “irrelevant,” and don’t support the appointment of a special master, especially considering the agreement of former co-defendant to produce CDRs under subpoenas served by both parties, it said. If the court finds the new arguments relevant, T-Mobile “was improperly denied the opportunity to respond to them because they were made for the first time” in the reply brief, it said. The new arguments are “improper and should be stricken,” it said. In the alternative, leave should be granted to permit T-Mobile to respond to them, it said.

U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo for Southern California in San Diego signed an order Monday (docket 3:22-cv-01764) transferring Barbara Brittain and Linda Dial's false advertising class action against Amazon to the Western District of Washington. All the parties stipulated to the transfer Friday (see 2303200007). The transfer is “for the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice,” said Bencivengo’s order. Brittain and Dial allege Amazon routinely “misrepresents” the benefits of Prime memberships when it advertises products available for free shipping in one or two days but in reality keeps members waiting substantially longer.

Defendant Arlo Technologies declined to have a U.S. magistrate judge conduct further proceedings in a fraud suit brought by plaintiff Henry Carter, said a Thursday declination (docket 5:23-cv-00534) filed in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose. The case was reassigned to U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer for Northern California. Carter’s February complaint alleges Arlo’s “End-of-Life Policy” for video storage for its Arlo security kit was a breach of contract (see 2302070045). The company notified Carter in January that seven-day free cloud storage might be reduced or unavailable upon each camera product's end-of-life effective date.

About a month after U.S. Magistrate Judge John Love for Eastern Texas in Tyler granted DirecTV authorization to effect service of process of its fraud complaint on defendant Motasim Billah via Facebook and LinkedIn because he's believed to be living in Pakistan (see 2302160055), “it appears that Billah is aware of this litigation and is trying to evade service,” said DirecTV’s status report Friday (docket 6:22-cv-00423). Though DirecTV hasn’t received “read receipts” on the communications it sent to Billah on Facebook and LinkedIn, he remains active on both platforms, “suggesting that Billah received the documents and is aware of this lawsuit,” it said. Sometime between Feb. 28 and March 10, Billah changed his Facebook profile photo, it said: “This demonstrates that he is using his Facebook account.” Screenshots also show Billah commented on several LinkedIn posts in the past three weeks, said the report. DirecTV alleged in a Nov. 1 complaint that Billah was a key player with nine co-defendants in an ongoing fraud scheme in which DirecTV telemarketing impersonators stole money from existing DirecTV account holders through manipulation of gift cards (see 2211010049).

Plaintiffs Barbara Brittain and Linda Dial “mutually agreed” with defendant Amazon to transfer their false advertising class action to the Western District of Washington in Seattle where Amazon is headquartered, said their joint stipulation Friday (3:22-cv-01764) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego. Their Nov. 10 complaint alleges Amazon routinely “misrepresents” the benefits of Prime memberships when it advertises products available for free shipping in one or two days but in reality keeps members waiting substantially longer (see 2211130001). The parties agree transfer “would conserve judicial and party resources by eliminating motion practice related to the forum-selection clause” in Amazon’s conditions of use, said their stipulation. They also met and conferred about possibly amending the complaint, with counsel for Brittain and Dial indicating an intention to add one or more additional named plaintiffs, it said.

Perry County, Alabama, plaintiff Miranda Bennett is the victim of inaccurate credit reporting by Verizon, Experian, Equifax and Transunion, alleged her Fair Credit Reporting Act complaint Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-00091) in U.S. District Court for Southern Alabama in Selma. Bennett suffered “particularized and concrete harm” due to the defendants’ wrongful conduct, it said. When she reviewed her Experian, Equifax and Transunion credit reports, she found all three had an unknown Verizon account she believes to be “the product of fraud,” it said. When she sent the credit agencies written notice of her discoveries, they forwarded her correspondence to Verizon, but the carrier “failed to conduct a reasonable investigation” of her dispute, it said. Verizon also failed to instruct the agencies to remove the false information from her credit profile, it said. Verizon violated the FCRA by “failing to permanently and lawfully correct its own internal records to prevent the re-reporting of false representations to the consumer credit reporting agencies, among other unlawful conduct,” it said. Verizon didn’t comment.

U.S. District Court Judge Jane Beckering for Western Michigan signed a notice of impending dismissal (docket 1:23-cv-55) against plaintiff Lonn Rider Wednesday in a fraud case against Arlo Technologies (see 2301130047). Beckering said the complaint was filed over 60 days ago and the defendant hasn't been served. To avoid dismissal, plaintiffs’ counsel must execute a verified petition advising the court the case shouldn't be dismissed, reasons why it shouldn’t be dismissed and why failure to obtain service wasn’t its fault. The petition must be filed by April 12, and the defendant must be served within 28 days of the date of the petition, it said. Rider sued Arlo over its "end of life" policy for free cloud storage of customers' security camera footage.

U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon for Southern New York signed an order Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-10882) setting a May 1 deadline for Samsung to file its motion to compel plaintiff Antonio Lewis’ dispute to arbitration. Lewis’ opposition to the motion is due June 15, with June 30 the deadline for Samsung’s optional reply, said the order. Samsung’s claim its Z Fold 3 smartphone can be folded and unfolded at least 200,000 times -- the number of such actions a user would perform in five years -- is based on “flawed” testing methodology and “not representative of real-world usage,” alleged Lewis’ Dec. 26 fraud class action (see 2301030027).

DirecTV stands by its arguments the four defendants in its fraud case “fail to state a valid, legal, affirmative defense to the claims asserted” by DirecTV, said the company's reply brief Monday (docket 6:22-cv-00423) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas in Tyler in support of its motion to strike those defenses (see 2302210006). DirecTV alleges the defendants are part of an unlawful scheme to steal money from consumers by impersonating DirecTV telemarketers. Allowing the defendants to amend their defenses, or letting any of the affirmative defenses stand, would cause DirecTV “undue prejudice,” said the reply. DirecTV contends the affirmative defenses are nothing more than blanket denials of DirecTV's claims, and that's why they should be thrown out.

When consumers cancel Charter’s Spectrum Internet Total service, Charter immediately discontinues the service but bills for a full month, alleged a Jan. 3 California Superior Court fraud class action that Charter removed Friday (docket 2:23-cv-01821) to U.S. District Court for Western California in Los Angeles. “Charter is reaping substantial ill-gotten profits at the expense of consumers,” alleged plaintiff Erica Steinberg, a Los Angeles County resident. “Further exacerbating its unlawful conduct,” Charter “purposely hides its illegitimate cancellation policy from consumers,” said her complaint. Even if Charter disclosed its cancellation terms, its practices “would still violate” the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, plus the California Civil Code’s Section 1723, “which codifies California's unlawful refund policies,” it said. Steinberg and members of the proposed class bought Charter's services they otherwise wouldn’t have bought “and are therefore entitled to restitution of monies in an amount to be determined at trial,” it said. She also alleges Charter violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. Charter doesn’t waive, and expressly preserves, “all objections, defenses, and exceptions authorized by law,” said its notice of removal.