After the filing of four complaints, plus a fully briefed and then withdrawn preliminary injunction motion and hundreds of pages of briefing over the past 12 months, Comcast’s suit against MaxLinear “should end,” said MaxLinear’s reply memorandum of law Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-04436) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in further support of its motion to dismiss Comcast’s third amended complaint. The dispute began about a year ago when Comcast alleged that chipmaker MaxLinear breached its “contractual obligations” to support millions of its broadband gateways (see 2305300045). MaxLinear contends that Comcast’s third amended complaint, like those before it, is a grievance “in search of a claim” (see 2404040031). The cable company has been given ample opportunity and process to identify and pursue a valid cause of action, said MaxLinear’s memorandum Wednesday. While the plaintiff maintains that MaxLinear terminated its contracts improperly in May 2023, it still hasn’t pled a “valid claim,” the memorandum said: “In fact, now four complaints in, Comcast does not even assert a claim for breach of those contracts.” The “attenuated” claims Comcast has asserted don’t clear “longstanding pleading standards and should be dismissed,” it said. Comcast’s April 24 opposition briefing (see 2404250002) “confirms that its pled claims fail,” it said. The plaintiff hasn’t suffered any harm from MaxLinear, “nor does Comcast identify any threatened or likely future harm,” it said. There’s thus “no jurisdiction” for the court to hear its declaratory judgment claims, and the court shouldn’t “indulge Comcast with an advisory opinion,” it said. Even worse, Comcast’s requested declarations “seek specific performance, for which it has not pled the necessary elements,” said the memorandum. Comcast’s ancillary claims for indemnification and breach of the implied covenant “are likewise insufficiently pled and equally meritless,” it said. After multiple hearings and pleadings, it’s now “abundantly clear” that Comcast “is decidedly outraged by MaxLinear’s lawful assignment of patents to Entropic, which has sued Comcast in another lawsuit,” it said. But as the court recognized when it ordered Comcast to replead its prior second amended complaint, intensity of feeling is not a replacement for a good statement of a cause of action, it said. The third amended complaint doesn’t include “a good statement of a cause of action, let alone one that survives dismissal,” said the memorandum: “Comcast’s year-long litigation campaign against MaxLinear should now conclude swiftly, and its claims dismissed.”
Ford objects to the “improper” plaintiffs’ motion for an advisory opinion for leave to amend their 3G telematics class action complaint and for an “indicative ruling” under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 62.1.1, said the automaker’s opposition Wednesday (docket 3:22-cv-01716) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego. The four plaintiffs allege that the 3G modems on Ford vehicles they bought or leased were rendered inoperable, as were the roadside assistance features that depended on those modems, after AT&T’s 3G phaseout in 2022. They allege the carmaker knew as early as 2019 that AT&T’s phaseout of the 3G network was inevitable and yet continued to manufacture vehicles with 3G modems. U.S. District Judge Michael Anello denied Ford’s motion to compel the plaintiffs’ claims to arbitration, and Ford is appealing that denial to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (see 2312040038). Ford’s Dec. 1 notice of appeal “divested the trial court of jurisdiction and automatically stayed further district court proceedings,” said its opposition. Despite that automatic stay, the plaintiffs seek to “circumvent resolution” of Ford’s appeal on the merits “by omitting their allegations that Ford’s authorized dealerships are agents of Ford,” it said. Such an amendment would be “futile,” it said. Principles of estoppel “would still permit consideration of the original as pleaded claims that were considered,” it said. Even if that weren’t the case, and even if the plaintiffs removed the allegation, “their causes of action require that some underlying agency relationship exist between Ford and its authorized dealerships,” it said. The plaintiffs’ claims for fraudulent omission, violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act and for breach of implied warranty “all require some underlying relationship” between Ford, the plaintiffs and the sales transaction with the authorized dealerships, it said. Ford’s appeal is based on the arguments made in its motion to compel arbitration, said its opposition. The carmaker argues that it may enforce the arbitration provisions as the alleged principal of the dealerships that countersigned the sales and lease contracts, it said. Ford also argues it may enforce the arbitration provisions as a third-party beneficiary of the lease contracts, and that it may enforce the arbitration provisions based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel, it said. The plaintiffs’ removal of agency allegations wouldn’t “moot the issues on appeal,” it said. Ford will meet and confer with the plaintiffs “so as to obviate the need to file a formal motion to enforce the appellate stay,” it said.
Like those before it, Comcast’s third amended complaint “is one in search of a claim,” said MaxLinear’s memorandum of law Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-04436) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan in support of its motion to dismiss. The dispute began nearly a year ago when Comcast alleged that chipmaker MaxLinear breached its “contractual obligations” to support millions of the cable company's broadband gateways (see 2305300045). Comcast’s “latest set of grievances” concerns two related contracts, though it doesn’t allege “any actionable harm arising from those contracts,” said MaxLinear’s memorandum. In its latest “mulligan,” Comcast asks the court to declare, even though it faces no threat of harm, that the contracts remain in effect. But without any threat of harm from MaxLinear, those declaratory judgment claims “seek an improper advisory opinion,” it said. Comcast’s “tag-along claims” for indemnification and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are “insufficiently pled and meritless,” said the memorandum. In reality, Comcast brings this suit to “retaliate” against MaxLinear for its assignment of certain patents to another entity, Entropic, which is now suing Comcast for willful patent infringement in the Central District of California, it said. Comcast doesn’t claim that MaxLinear should never have assigned the patents to Entropic, nor could it, as neither contract bars patent assignments, it said. Comcast’s gripe is that one of the contracts contains a covenant that it contends bars Entropic’s lawsuit, it said. But the California court has already ruled that the covenant permits claims of willful patent infringement, which Entropic is pursuing, and has ordered Comcast to produce discovery relevant to willful infringement, it said. There’s thus nothing for this court to address, said the memorandum. Comcast’s lawsuit is “a thinly veiled attempt to game the judicial system, obtain potentially conflicting rulings, and waste the time and resources” of the court and the parties, it said. The court should dismiss Comcast’s third amended complaint with prejudice, it said.
The office of Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) moved to dismiss or alternatively to strike defendant Smartbiz Telecom’s Sept. 7 robocalling counterclaim against the state on multiple grounds, including that it's "redundant" to Smartbiz's previous arguments and adds "nothing new to the case," said its motion Thursday (docket 1:22-cv-23945) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Miami. Smartbiz filed its counterclaim after U.S. District Judge Jose Martinez denied its Jan. 20 motion to dismiss Moody’s complaint, saying the Florida AG’s office clearly has Article III standing to bring its robocalling suit on behalf of its citizens (see 2308240041).