Jan. 22 oral argument on Samsung’s pending motions to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended consolidated complaint and to strike their class allegations arising from a July 2022 data breach was adjourned to Feb. 7, said a text-only order Tuesday (docket 1:23-md-3055) from U.S. District Judge Christine O'Hearn for New Jersey in Camden. Despite the “benign nature” of the data stolen in the breach, the amended consolidated complaint “cobbles together 49 individuals from 34 states alleging violations of numerous different state laws based on sharply diverging experiences and injuries” that the plaintiffs attribute to the data breach, said Samsung’s motion to strike (see 2308230018). In light of the “divergent experiences” of the 49 named plaintiffs, “the reality is that no factual development could alter the conclusion that this case cannot be certified as a class action,” it said.
The initial case management conference in Nicholas Furia v. 23andMe should be modified to 30 days after the court rules on the defendant’s motion to stay proceedings pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) regarding consolidation of at least 30 related privacy cases against the online genetic testing company. So said a proposed order (docket 3:23-cv-05565) Tuesday in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. Furia filed his negligence class action Oct. 27, alleging the company (see 2310300040) failed to implement basic data security practices, leading to a data breach that compromised his personally identifiable information. On Dec. 21, 23andMe filed a motion to transfer actions to the Northern California court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the JPML. It asked the court to enter a stay of all proceedings on Dec. 29 until the JPML rules on the motion, then filed a re-notice of the motion to stay to correct the briefing schedule Friday, said the proposed order. The parties agreed to reschedule the initial case management conference and related deadlines to 30 days after the court’s decision, said the proposed order.
Opthamology provider The Retina Group of Washington (RGW) notified patients on its website from July 7 to Nov. 4 of a data breach it experienced March 26 but didn’t disclose that current and former patients’ personally identifiable (PII) or personal health information (PHI) were compromised, a class action alleged Tuesday (dockets 8:24-cv-00079) in U.S. District Court for Maryland in Greenbelt.
The plaintiffs in six data breach class actions against ESO Solutions are seeking an order consolidating their related cases and one setting scheduling deadlines, said their coordinated joint motion Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-01557) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin. ESO is a supplier of data management software to hospitals and first responders.
Automaker FCA US violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing prerecorded calls without consent to a group of individuals for whom the message isn’t applicable and who requested not to receive the calls, alleged Mansfield, Texas, resident Carlos Delgadillo in a class action Sunday (docket 2:24-cv-10039) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan in Detroit. FCA places those calls to consumers to notify them about product recalls, per Delgadillo’s experience, said the complaint. While calls designed to notify consumers about air bag recalls for their Chrysler cars are important, FCA is calling “a whole host of individuals who never owned a car that the recall is relevant to,” including Delgadillo in this case, it said. FCA continues to call these consumers “despite all of their best efforts” to opt out of these calls using FCA’s “own opt-out mechanisms,” or by calling FCA and speaking to a live agent demanding that the calls stop, it said. FCA’s unlawful conduct leaves consumers “in an endless doom loop of prerecorded calls they cannot exit from,” it said. Delgadillo alleges receiving 78 calls from FCA between May 15 and Dec. 26, often twice a day, including one call on Christmas Day, despite his multiple demands that the calls stop, said the complaint.
Four days after filing a shareholder derivative class action against Verizon CEO Hans Vestberg and 15 current and former board members for allegedly covering up their knowledge of Verizon’s abandoned toxic lead-laden telecom cables (see 2401050001), plaintiff Wade Sarver voluntarily dismissed his claims against all the defendants without prejudice, said his notice of dismissal Monday (docket 3:24-cv-00063) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Trenton. No defendant has filed an answer or moved for summary judgment, said the notice. Neither Sarver nor his counsel, Laurence Rosen of the Rosen Law Firm, “has received or will receive directly or indirectly any consideration for the dismissal,” it said. Rosen is the same attorney who previously helped bring shareholder derivative class actions against top AT&T and Verizon executives and board members, also for allegedly concealing what they knew about the abandoned lead cables (see 2308020046).
Here are Communications Litigation Today's top stories from last week, in case you missed them. Each can be found by searching on its title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The personally identifiable information (PII) of more than 1.3 million individuals was compromised due to a “critical flaw” in Citrix’s NetScaler software, alleged a class action Monday (docket 0:24-cv-60048) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale. The suit names Citrix, its customer LoanCare and LoanCare parent company Fidelity National Financial (FNF).
Three Comcast Xfinity customers in Florida sued the company Monday under the Cable Act for not protecting their personally identifiable information (PII) in the October “Citrix Bleed” data breach, said their class action Monday (docket 1:24-cv-20064) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale.
Ezra Elstein seeks to “vindicate his federal statutory rights” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to stop Premium Capital Fund, a business loan company, from waging its campaign of “illegal text messaging,” said his class action Friday (docket 1:24-cv-00086) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan. The Pennsylvania resident seeks damages, injunctive relief and “any other available legal or equitable remedies” resulting from Premium’s “illegal actions” of negligently and willfully contacting him and other “similarly situated consumers” in violation of the TCPA, said his complaint. Though Elstein listed his cellphone number on the national do not call registry in February 2019, Premium sent several unauthorized telemarketing text messages to that number in November for “the purpose of soliciting business,” it said. By making such telephone solicitations, Premium has invaded Elstein’s “personal privacy” and that of his putative class members, it said. The TCPA was enacted “to protect consumers from unsolicited and unwanted communications exactly like those alleged in this case,” it said. Elstein didn’t provide Premium with his cellphone number at any point in time, nor did he give permission for the company to message it, said the complaint. He also didn’t have an established business relationship with Premium at any point in time, it said.