NetChoice and Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) exchanged dueling briefs Wednesday in U.S. District Court for Western Arkansas in Fayetteville over whether NetChoice and its members have third-party standing to challenge the state’s social media age verification law on their own behalf or on behalf of current and future social media users (see 2307280019). NetChoice seeks a preliminary injunction to block Griffin from enforcing the measure, SB-396, when it takes effect Sept. 1 (see 2307100005).
Rochester, New York, enacted a new telecommunications code three years ago that imposes “excessively high fees” on telecom providers in violation of federal law, said plaintiffs Verizon, Extenet and Crown Castle in a joint memorandum of law Monday (docket 6:19-cv-06583) in U.S. District Court for Western New York in Rochester. Their opening brief in support of their motion for judgment in their favor followed a two-day consolidated bench trial in early June (see 2212200065).
A mediation status report is due Aug. 8 in Cisco’s trade secret misappropriation appeal against Poly and its hardware and software architect Wilson Chung, said a 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court order Tuesday (docket 23-15590). Under the court’s newly amended briefing schedule, Cisco’s opening brief is due Sept. 27, and the appellees’ answering brief Oct. 27, said the order. Cisco’s appeal asserts the district court erred when it granted summary judgment to Poly and Chung, and when it denied Cisco's motions for spoliation sanctions (see 2305010007). Cisco alleges Chung improperly kept “substantial Cisco confidential information” for the Cisco 730 headset and the Webex Desk Pro when he left Cisco in 2019 to join Poly, then disclosed those trade secrets to other Poly employees (see 2304220002).
A group of commercial fishing companies is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to do away with the Chevron doctrine, in a brief filed Monday in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Many observers consider SCOTUS likely to eliminate or severely limit Chevron deference (see 2306290063). The lead lawyer on the brief (docket 22-451) is Paul Clement, U.S. solicitor general under George W. Bush.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen for Northern California in San Jose granted McAfee’s motion to dismiss pro se plaintiff James Linlor’s cybersquatting complaint, but declined McAfee’s request to declare Linlor a vexatious litigant (see 2306130049), said her signed order Friday (docket 5:23-cv-00385). Linlor had alleged that McAfee’s unlawful use of the Cyberguard.com domain was inhibiting him from getting his cybersecurity consultancy off the ground under a similar name. McAfee’s defense included its assertion that it sold the domain to Musarubra in 2021. Van Keulen’s order rendered as moot Linlor’s motions to add Musarubra as a defendant and to transfer the case to Delaware where Musarubra is domiciled. Linlor’s allegations under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act must be dismissed for failure to state a claim, said the order. In declining to grant Linlor leave to amend his ACPA claim, Van Keulen “acknowledges that courts must give pro se litigants the benefit of the doubt when evaluating claims on a motion to dismiss,” said the order. But pro se litigants “still must be able to state a claim for relief to proceed with an action,” it said. “Here, the key facts are undisputed and will not change if the case continues into the discovery phase.” The length of time between Linlor’s registration of the domain and his first use of Cyberguard in commerce “is too large to be cured through the allegation of additional facts,” it said. Linlor further conceded on the record that his service mark Cyberguard was not distinctive at the time the domain was registered in 1998, it said. That’s an admission that “eviscerates his ACPA claim,” it said. The court is convinced that Linlor “can allege no set of facts that would remedy these deficiencies,” it said. Because Van Keulen is dismissing Linlor’s claims without leave to amend, she declines McAfee’s request to declare Linlor a vexatious litigant “at this juncture,” said the order. But Linlor is reminded that “he has obligations” under Federal Rule 11(b) “whenever he files a pleading, motion, or other paper” with the court, it said: “A future federal court may find sanctions are warranted, particularly if Linlor continues to file papers presenting incendiary and groundless statements.”
U.S. District Court Judge Brantley Starr granted EDN Global’s motion for consideration to file a first amended complaint (FAC) in its breach of contract lawsuit (docket 3:23-cv-00355) against AT&T, said his Tuesday order in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas. Plaintiffs articulated a non-conclusory reason it’s necessary -- “to base the complaint on Texas law” -- Starr’s order said. In a separate order, he found "moot" AT&T’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Government efforts to restrict minors from accessing online content “have repeatedly been struck down,” especially when they impede the First Amendment rights of adults as well, and Arkansas' social media age verification law “should meet the same fate,” said NetChoice. It filed a memorandum Friday (docket 5:23-cv-05105) in U.S. District Court for Western Arkansas in Fayetteville in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction to block Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) from enforcing the measure when it takes effect Sept. 1 (see 2306300001).
Missouri and Louisiana are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim against defendants from the White House, Surgeon General's office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, FBI, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and State Department, said U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty, a President Donald Trump appointee, in a 155-page Fourth of July memorandum ruling (docket 3:22-cv-01213).
Industry breathed a sigh of relief after a California state court delayed enforcement of California Privacy Rights Act regulations Friday. The California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) said the ruling by the California Superior Court in Sacramento righted an unfair situation for businesses. “Significant portions” of CPRA remain enforceable, despite the court’s ruling, said California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) Executive Director Ashkan Soltani.
U.S. District Judge Chad Bryan for Middle Alabama in Montgomery ordered pro se plaintiff Lee Cunningham to show cause by May 16 why Southern Power’s motion to dismiss his Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint or for summary judgment in Southern Power’s favor shouldn’t be granted, said his signed order Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-00621). Southern Power’s reply brief is due seven days after Cunningham files his response. Southern Power’s motion to dismiss said Cunningham’s complaint was “impermissibly frivolous” because he in fact knows that Southern Power wasn't the party that inundated him with debt collection calls, but he’s suing the wholesale power company anyway (see 2304280041). Bryan’s order admonished Cunningham that in responding, he shouldn’t rely on “his unsworn pleadings.” He must additionally submit “sworn/verified statements made under penalty of perjury,” plus any other evidentiary materials that would support his TCPA claims against Southern Power, said his order. Bryan warned Cunningham that he risks monetary or non-monetary sanctions if he violates Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and its safeguards against pleadings for an improper purpose or those that contain frivolous arguments or arguments that have no evidentiary support.