Defendants Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman, who face a Jan. 29 jury damages trial for their roles in the robocall campaign to suppress Black voters' mail-in ballots in the 2020 election, had until Monday to respond to the plaintiffs’ request for an order forcing them to disclose by Nov. 4 whether they intend to testify at trial (see 2310050004), said an order signed Thursday (docket 1:20-cv-08668) by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero for Southern New York in Manhattan. The plaintiffs told the judge they were unable to obtain testimony from Wohl and Burkman during their depositions because they invoked their Fifth Amendment rights “in response to nearly every question.” To prevent an “unfair surprise at trial,” Marrero should order the defendants to either withdraw their Fifth Amendment assertions and testify, or he should bar them from testifying, said the plaintiffs. If Wohl and Burkman plan not to invoke their Fifth Amendment privileges at trial, the plaintiffs asked the judge for an opportunity to depose them again during trial preparation.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria for Northern California in San Francisco granted parties’ request for a stay in a First Amendment case against TikTok and Meta Platforms in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in NetChoice v. Paxton last week, said his signed order (docket 3:23-cv-04045) Wednesday. Plaintiff Paul Davis and defendants TikTok and Meta will inform the court of any relevant developments, including SCOTUS’ disposition of NetChoice, the order said. In NetChoice, SCOTUS will address the constitutionality of Texas House Bill 20 (HB-20), the law under which Davis is suing. Davis’ complaint against Meta claims its alleged moderation of Facebook and Instagram violates HB-20; Meta moved to dismiss the complaint as a matter of law, including that the bill violates the First Amendment. The Eastern District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern District of California in August (see 2308110029) without ruling on Meta’s motion to dismiss; the action was assigned to the Northern California court on Aug. 28.

Defendants TikTok and Meta Platforms and plaintiff Paul Davis requested a stay in their First Amendment case in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in NetChoice v. Paxton last week (see 2309290020, said their joint stipulation (docket 3:23-cv-04045) Tuesday in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco. In NetChoice, SCOTUS will address the constitutionality of Texas House Bill 20 (HB-20), the law under which Davis is suing, said the stipulation. A stay “promotes the interests of judicial economy and orderly management of this Action,” it said. Davis’ complaint against Meta claims its alleged moderation of Facebook and Instagram violates HB-20; Meta moved to dismiss the complaint as a matter of law, including that the bill violates the First Amendment. The Eastern District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern District of California in August (see 2308110029) without ruling on Meta’s motion to dismiss; the action was assigned to the Northern California court on Aug. 28. A stay promotes the interests of judicial economy and orderly management of this lawsuit, said the filing.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler for Northern California in San Francisco granted the parties’ stipulation to adjourn the Nov. 2 initial case management conference in the lawsuit filed July 31 in which the X platform, formerly Twitter, alleges the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) is running a "scare campaign" to drive away owner Elon Musk’s advertisers (see 2308020026), said Beeler’s signed order Tuesday (docket 3:23-cv-03836). The conference will be reset to a date after the court rules on CCDH’s anticipated motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b) and to strike the X platform’s amended complaint as legally deficient, said the order. CCDH’s motions are due Nov. 16, the X platform’s opposition to those motions Dec. 22, with CCDH’s reply Jan. 10, said the order.

U.S. District Judge Michael Shea for Connecticut in New Haven gave Frontier Communications until Oct. 17 to submit a renewed motion for injunctive relief and compensatory damages and evidence in support of its request for attorney's fees in its lawsuit to stop VoIP services provider Mobi Telecom from facilitating illegal robocalls across its network, said the judge’s text-only order Tuesday (docket 3:22-cv-00218). If Frontier declines to pursue the case against Mobi, it will be dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, said Shea’s order.

X Corp., formerly Twitter, through its use of the “X” mark, caused irreparable harm to X Social Media, a marketing company that began using its “distinctive and dominant letter ‘X’ eight years ago," the company said Monday in a trademark infringement complaint (docket 6:23-cv-01903) against X in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Orlando. Twitter launched a rebrand campaign in July, when it adopted the “X” as the brand for its social media platform, and its use and attempt to register the mark for social media, business data, promotion, advertising and market research services has and will continue to cause “serious” harm to X Social Media, said the plaintiff. X Social Media invested over $400 million in advertising to ensure that potential victims are aware of potentially dangerous goods and services, along with potential avenues for redress if they have been harmed, said the plaintiff. It also invested over $2 million in building brand awareness and reaching consumers, it said. X Social Media’s messaging and use of social media and data analytics to help law firms helped it grow; INC 5000 ranked X Social the 159th fastest growing private company in the U.S. in 2020, it said. The plaintiff registered “X SocialMedia” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for use in association with advertising services, the complaint said. X Corp. made international filings for “X” in March, using the filings as the basis for seven applications before the USPTO, the plaintiff said. The media coverage and attention generated by the former Twitter’s X launch “quickly caused reverse confusion and led consumers to believe that X Social Media’s advertising services are being offered by or are associated with X Corp.,” the complaint said. Consumers “naturally conflate X SocialMedia’ as X Corp.’s social media platform,” it said, and media outlets covering Twitter’s rebrand use “the X SocialMedia Mark in its entirety in headlines while referencing X Corp.,” it said. A “simple Google Search” for “x social media” leads to a Wikipedia listing for X Corp., the complaint noted. X Social Media tried to resolve the trademark infringement via a cease-and-desist letter to X Corp. before filing the action, but that company declined to cease using the "X" mark and “continued to disregard the rights of X Social Media,” it said. The suit also claims unfair competition under Florida law, violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and common law trademark and service mark infringement. The suit seeks a permanent injunction enjoining X from marketing or selling services bearing the “X” mark; an order requiring X Corp. to publish “corrective advertising” to correct consumer confusion over the marks; and an order requiring X to account to X Social Media all profits resulting from its use of "X," plus damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

Conditional transfer order 18 in Re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation was finalized Thursday, said a clerk’s filing (docket 3047) at the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Under the order, Board of Education of Anne Arundel County, Maryland v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al., Board of Education of Charles County v. Meta, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education v. Meta and School District of Greenville County v. Meta tagalong actions were transferred to U.S. District Court for Northern California in Oakland under Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. In October 2022, the JPML transferred 20 actions to Northern California federal court for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the MDL. Since then, 104 additional actions have been transferred to Rogers’ court, said the order.

The U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia said the C-Band Alliance (CBA) agreement between SES and Intelsat was broad enough to cover accelerated relocation payments for clearing the C band, and SES had good evidence to show this was the intent of the two parties, SES told the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for Eastern Virginia Thursday in its principal brief on remand (docket 20-32299). The district court's rejection of Intelsat's counterarguments leaves Intelsat "with nothing to stand on," SES said. The district court in June reversed the bankruptcy court's denial of SES' $421 million claim against Intelsat for damages stemming from the collapse of the CBA and remanded the case to the bankruptcy court (see 2306230018). In its principal brief, SES told the court Intelat's Chapter 11 plan allocates the relocation payments to its corporate parent and its license-holding entity, but Intelsat's argument SES can't recover from those entities fails under the principles of agency and of veil-piercing.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals set in-person oral argument Nov. 9 at 9 a.m. CST in New Orleans in plaintiff-appellant Darrell Seybold’s challenge of the district court’s dismissal of his whistleblower’s complaint against Charter Communications, said a signed clerk’s order Thursday (docket 23-10104). Seybold, a former Charter sales executive, alleges he was terminated for exposing Charter’s unlawful "cooking the books," in violation of the whistleblower protections in the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act (see 2304040022). Charter maintains Seybold was terminated for his long record of unprofessional conduct.

U.S. District Judge Jonathan Grey for Eastern Michigan in Detroit granted T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss Michigan First Credit Union's Electronic Fund Transfer Act complaint for failure to state a claim, said the judge’s signed order Friday (docket 2:22-cv-13159). Michigan First alleged T-Mobile left it holding the bag for $7.6 million in EFTA damages due to unauthorized SIM swaps committed under T-Mobile's watch, and it sued for reimbursement of those damages (see 2304030039). But the judge said because Michigan First isn’t one of the intended beneficiaries of EFTA and because the text and structure of the statute don’t support it, there’s “no express or implied cause of action for indemnification or contribution under EFTA.”