The U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose should deny plaintiff Bradford Clements’ Jan. 3 motion for monetary sanctions against T-Mobile for its alleged failure to comply with the court’s Aug. 2 discovery order (see 2401040011), said T-Mobile’s opposition Wednesday (docket 5:22-cv-07512). Clements contends that T-Mobile has had at least four attorneys on his case since its inception, and the court’s order “clearly established” an Aug. 28 deadline for T-Mobile’s first written discovery responses. He also contends that T-Mobile submitted 38 responses and newly produced records 50 days late, and it has “inexplicably failed to verify all of its interrogatory answers,” it said. But Clements’ motion for sanctions is “procedurally flawed” and “substantively baseless,” said T-Mobile’s opposition. T-Mobile has provided “detailed responses” to Clements’ discovery requests, which relate only to the issue of whether T-Mobile and Clements agreed to arbitrate their dispute, it said. “It remains clear that a valid arbitration agreement exists, and no further discovery is needed on this straightforward issue,” said the opposition. Yet 50 days after failing to timely respond to T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss and compel his claims to arbitration, Clements has elected instead to file a sanctions motion “that demonstrates only that his apparent goal in this case is to needlessly litigate for the sake of it,” it said. Clements hasn’t identified any alleged deficiencies in T-Mobile’s discovery responses, it said. Clements’ motion “at best” reflects a complaint “about the timing of T-Mobile’s supplemental discovery responses,” which Clements had for nearly a month before his response to T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss was due, it said. “Yet he took no action and filed this improper motion instead,” it said. T-Mobile hasn’t “disobeyed any prior discovery order,” and has shown “no bad faith,” said the opposition. Clements’ “last-ditch effort” to stall T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss should be denied, and T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration should be granted, it said. Clements first sued T-Mobile in November 2022 for damages and injunctive relief for being victimized in eight data breaches in the three years he was a T-Mobile customer (see 2306060047).
Plaintiff Jesus Marcos lost “hundreds of thousands of dollars in money and cryptocurrency” as a result of T-Mobile’s negligence in a SIM swap, alleged his 18-count fraud complaint Tuesday (docket 5:24-cv-00085) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Riverside.
Amazon seeks monetary sanctions against Julie Guo, counsel for former Amazon third-party seller Shenzhen Zongheng Domain Network, for submitting legal arguments in Zongheng’s May 8 motion to remand a vacatur petition to New York Supreme Court that she knew to be “legally frivolous.” Amazon filed its memorandum of law Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-03334) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan, seeking the sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
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.
Bradford Clements, who first sued T-Mobile in November 2022 for damages and injunctive relief from being victimized in eight data breaches in the three years he was a T-Mobile customer (see 2306060047), seeks monetary sanctions against T-Mobile for its failure to comply with the court’s Aug. 2 discovery order. The pro se plaintiff filed a memorandum of points and authorities Wednesday (docket 5:22-cv-07512) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose in support of his motion for sanctions.
Nexum Group, an Orlando debt collection agency, hounded plaintiff Anatres Ciotti with at least 17 calls for a $4,000 debt he didn’t owe, alleged Ciotti’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action Wednesday (docket 6:23-cv-02477) in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Orlando. Ciotti’s demands that the “harassing” calls cease “fell on deaf ears,” said the Sandford, Florida, resident's complaint. At no point in time did Ciotti give his cellphone number to Nexum or otherwise consent to its phone calls, it said. The calls have invaded Ciotti’s privacy and have caused him “actual harm,” including the aggravation that accompanies unwanted robocalls, it said. His complaint also alleges Nexum violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill for Idaho in Coeur d'Alene denied Kochava’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions against the FTC on grounds that the agency's June 5 amended complaint contained consumer privacy allegations that were frivolous, knowingly false or filed for an improper purpose, said his memorandum decision and order Friday (docket 2:22-cv-00377). The judge also granted the FTC’s motion to unseal its complaint, and gave the parties 14 days to object to the disclosure of documents not addressed in his order.
Meghani World is taking off the gloves in its fight to defeat plaintiff Marquelle Vinson’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action allegations that the online luxury watch retailer engages in unlawful unsolicited text-messaging and continues to text-message consumers after they opt out of its solicitations (see 2308310012). Vinson has failed to state a cause of action on which relief may be granted, and Meghani is entitled to a dismissal of her claims, said its answer Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-01938) in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas. Vinson’s complaint also violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, said its answer. Rule 11 provides that a district court may sanction attorneys or parties who submit pleadings for an improper purpose or that contain frivolous arguments or arguments that have no evidentiary support. Vinson's Rule 11 violation occurred because she had “no good faith belief based on a reasonable inquiry that there are any other persons or entities who would belong to the class” that she seeks to establish, said Meghani’s answer. Vinson “knows or should know that she knows of only one person similarly situated,” and that’s Vinson herself, it said. It appears that Vinson filed her suit “with no knowledge or information to support a belief that there were indeed others who would belong to a class” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, it said. It also “appears clear” that Vinson planned on filing suit, “and then seeking discovery from Meghani to see if there are any other potential class members, with no good faith belief that there were indeed any other class members,” said Meghani’s answer. Vinson violated Rule 11(b) by filing her suit for “an improper purpose,” said its answer. That purpose was “to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation,” it said. She did so by seeking class action certification when she knows or should know that as of the filing of her suit, she knows “of no other prospective class members,” said Meghani.
For more than 20 years, plaintiffs Best Payphones, Northeastern Telecom and Paramount Financial Recovery contended that the payphone service rates that defendant Verizon charged between 1997 and 2006 didn’t comply with FCC regulations, said Verizon and co-defendant MetTel in their memorandum of law Monday (docket 1:23-cv-04935) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan in support of their motion to dismiss the complaint. The claims lack merit and are time barred, it said.
SolarWinds is “disappointed by the SEC’s unfounded charges related to a Russian cyberattack on an American company," and it's "deeply concerned this action will put our national security at risk,” emailed a spokesperson Tuesday. The SEC's 10-count lawsuit alleged SolarWinds and Timothy Brown, its chief information security officer, were guilty of Securities and Exchange Act violations.