Defendant Factory Mutual Insurance opposes plaintiff Comcast Spectacor’s motion to indefinitely stay the proceedings against its insurer until the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decides two pending cases involving similar issues (see 2309150026), said the insurer’s memorandum Thursday (docket 2:23-cv-02476) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Spectacor, owner of the Philadelphia Flyers and the Wells Fargo Center, is suing Factory Mutual to recover losses it incurred when COVID-19 forced the cancellation or curtailment of Flyers' games in 2020 and 2021, alleging Factory Mutual refuses to honor the terms of the property insurance policy the team bought to protect it against catastrophic losses (see 2306290001). But the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, plus other courts nationally, have dismissed similar complaints on several grounds that apply in Spectacor’s case against Factory Mutual, said the insurer. Spectacor says important issues of Pennsylvania state law are at the heart of the two cases pending before the state Supreme Court, whose rulings in those cases could “govern the result” of Factory Mutual’s motion to dismiss. But Factory Mutual disagrees, arguing neither of those cases “has been briefed or argued, and they will likely not be decided for well over a year.” Putting Spectacor’s case on hold is “unnecessary” because the 3rd Circuit already decided in Wilson v. USI Insurance Services that under Pennsylvania law, Factory Mutual’s policy doesn't cover Spectacor’s losses, said the insurer’s opposition. Even if Pennsylvania's Supreme Court were to unexpectedly disagree with Wilson, and the overwhelming majority of state supreme and federal appellate courts that have reached the same result, it wouldn’t affect the outcome of Spectacor’s case against Factory Mutual, said the insurer.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tentatively calendared oral argument for the week of Nov. 6 in the appeal of Darrell Seybold, the former Charter Communications sales manager who’s seeking to reverse the lower court’s dismissal of his claims for lack of specificity in his allegations (see 2304040022), said a court notice Monday (docket 23-10104). Seybold alleges he was terminated for exposing Charter’s unlawful conduct, in violation of the whistleblower protections in the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

The U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa dismissed without prejudice plaintiff Jen Gonzalez’s Sept. 5 class action that sought to hold Charter Communications accountable for Spectrum’s Disney blackout (see 2309060040), said a clerk's order Monday (docket 8:23-cv-01994). Gonzalez alleged Spectrum’s failure to strike a renewed cable deal with Disney caused her to miss the opening Aug. 31 game of the Florida Gators college football season on ESPN. Disney and Charter resolved their dispute Sept. 11.

Defendant OpenAI still hasn’t shown that U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta has diversity jurisdiction because it hasn’t established the citizenship of OpenAI Holdings and Aestas Managemen, both of which are entities in OpenAI’s membership structure, said U.S. District Judge Michael Brown in a text-only order Friday (docket 1:23-cv-03122). Mark Walters, a nationally syndicated talk show host, alleges OpenAI’s ChatGPT service defamed him to a reporter (see 2307240031). OpenAI “must affirmatively identify by name each member of an LLC and then allege whatever specific facts are necessary to establish the citizenship of that member,” said Brown’s order. He’s giving OpenAI “one last chance to do so,” it said. OpenAI must file, no later than Oct. 6, a single consolidated document showing the court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, it said. “Failure to do so will result in remand” to the Gwinnett County Superior Court where the case originated before OpenAI removed it to Atlanta federal court July 14, said the order.

Shenzhen Zongheng Domain Network, a former Amazon third-party seller, failed to establish grounds under federal law for vacating an arbitration award in Amazon’s favor, said Amazon’s reply Friday (docket 1:23-cv-03334) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan in support of its cross-motion to confirm that award. Zongheng seeks recovery of $508,000 in sales proceeds that Amazon seized, and the arbitrator let Amazon keep, when it deactivated the seller’s online store for allegedly manipulating customer product reviews (see 2305080023). Zongheng’s latest brief “inexplicably fails to address any of Amazon’s arguments in support of confirmation and in opposition to vacatur,” said Amazon’s reply. “Nearly every sentence” of Zongheng’s filing previously appeared in its memorandum of law in support of its vacatur petition, it said. Zongheng’s brief “repeats its prior arguments, in large part literally word for word,” it said. Arguments to which a litigant fails to respond are waived, which is “fatal” to Zongheng’s vacatur petition, said Amazon. Zongheng doesn’t contest that federal law provides the legal standards for the motions to confirm and vacate the final award, it said. But Zongheng cites no federal authority that would provide a basis to vacate the final award, it said. Zongheng cites no federal authority at all, relying on New York state court citations that are not “precedent” in the Southern District of New York, and don’t, in some cases, even concern the Federal Arbitration Act, “which governs this dispute,” it said.

Plaintiff Livingston Parish School Board moved for an order vacating conditional transfer order-17 (CTO-17) in Re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Product Liability Litigation, said its Thursday motion (docket 3047) before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The school board seeks to remand the case to U.S. District Court for Middle Louisiana on grounds that federal jurisdiction is lacking, it said. It alternatively requests that the JPML stay further action on CTO-17 until the Middle District of Louisiana rules on its motion to remand, it said. The board sued Meta, Instagram, ByteDance, Charter and Cox in a negligence suit, alleging social media companies are causing a rising mental health crisis among U.S. youth. The LPSB receives over 75% of its revenue from the state, it said, saying the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has said source of funding “carries the most weight” in factor-based tests determining whether an entity such as a school board is part of the state. This month, Charter Communications and Cox Communications filed a notice of opposition to CTO-17 (see 2309070013, saying ISP defendants haven't been named as defendants in any of the cases previously consolidated into the MDL, “each of which targets the creators of social media platforms and similar software products, along with their affiliates.” The ISPs don’t oppose transfer of the Livingston Parish action in general, but Charter and Cox plan to file a motion to vacate CTO-17 “to the extent it pertains to the claims against them, which should be separated and remanded to the transferor court,” the notice said.

Seven former Twitter employees and X, formerly Twitter, filed a joint stipulation (docket 4:23-cv-04016) Tuesday in U.S. District Court for Northern California in Oakland to stay a discrimination case. They said their time and resources would be best served by including their pending action within the scope of mediation ordered by the U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco in Eitan Adler v. Twitter, Inc. and X Corp. (docket 3:23-cv-01788). Plaintiffs Nhu Weinberg, Samantha Gongora, Julia Steele, Omolade Ogunsanya, Nanci Sills, Krista Bessinger and Ikuhiro Ihara sued X in August for discrimination and/or violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (see 2308100009). The plaintiffs all filed administrative charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and received right to sue letters to pursue the claims in court. The plaintiffs seek for themselves and the class declaratory relief and the reinstatement of female, Black and older employees who wish to return to their jobs, plus employees terminated in violation of the FMLA. Plaintiffs’ claims in Adler v. Twitter includes violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) and California’s WARN Act, plus state labor codes.

Former Amazon third-party seller Jiakeshu Technology seeks oral argument on its petition to vacate an August 2022 arbitrator’s award in Amazon’s favor (see 2212010065), Jiakeshu’s counsel wrote U.S. District Judge Jessica Clarke for Southern New York in a letter Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-10119). Jiakeshu is seeking the recovery of $50,000 in sales proceeds that Amazon seized and the arbitrator let it keep when Amazon deactivated Jiakeshu’s online store for sending out gift cards to entice customers to submit positive reviews. Oral argument “will give both sides a valuable opportunity to respond to questions” and provide “additional context for the case,” Jiakeshu’s counsel told the judge. It can also highlight key points “to present the case more efficiently,” and help the court “thoroughly consider the issues,” she said. Since the case involves “novel issues,” and respondent Amazon is facing multiple upcoming cases with similar fact patterns and issues, “oral argument will help establish legal precedents, which can serve as crucial guidance for future cases,” she said. Amazon doesn’t oppose the request for oral argument, but doesn’t join in it, she said.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction over Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s emergency motion for injunction pending appeal following a district court’s denial of his application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) vs. Google, said its Wednesday order (docket 3:23-cv-03880) dismissing the motion. Kennedy, a 2024 Democratic presidential candidate, appealed to the 9th Circuit last month (see 2308300001) after the Aug. 23 denial of his application for a TRO to enjoin YouTube from enforcing its medical misinformation policies. U.S. Circuit Judges Bridget Bade, Kenneth Kiyul Lee and Lawrence VanDyke denied Kennedy’s emergency motion for injunction pending appeal “as moot," citing Religious Technology Center v. Church of Scientology International: "Ordinarily, an appeal does not lie from the denial of an application for a temporary restraining order; such appeals are considered premature and are disallowed in the interests of avoiding uneconomical piecemeal appellate review.” Kennedy's freedom of speech lawsuit alleges “the extraordinary steps the United States government has taken under the leadership of Joe Biden to silence people it does not want Americans to hear,” notably Kennedy's position on COVID-19 and other vaccines.

Plaintiff-appellant Narciso Fuentes initially brought his action in Alameda County Superior Court, seeking injunctive relief to bar Dish Network from future violations of California’s Home Solicitation Sales Act, said his opening brief Monday (docket 23-15865) in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Dish promptly removed Fuentes’ case to U.S. District Court for Northern California, but it was “undisputed” that Fuentes lacked Article III standing in federal court to “pursue the public injunctive relief he sought" under California law, said the brief. After all his other claims had been adjudicated, Fuentes moved for a remand of the only unadjudicated claims, those for public injunctive relief, it said. The district court denied the motion and instead proceeded to enter judgment, it said. Fuentes asks the 9th Circuit to reverse the denial of remand and direct the district court to remand his claims for public injunctive relief to Alameda County Superior Court, where his case originated, said his brief. The problems began for Fuentes, a native Spanish speaker who understands very little English, in August 2015 when he answered a direct-mail flyer advertising Dish’s Spanish-language satellite TV programming, said his brief. He agreed to the installation of the Dish equipment in his Oakland home, after connecting on the phone with a Spanish-speaking Dish agent, it said. When a Dish installation technician came to Fuentes’ home, he presented him with a tablet that displayed Dish’s subscription contract, all in English, and asked him to sign, it said. He soon realized he had agreed to a 24-month contract, when he wanted only a 12-month term, but when he phoned Dish, a Spanish-speaking agent told him he would be on the hook for $480 for terminating his contract early, it said. Fuentes’ appeal rests on his argument that the district court erred in denying remand “on the basis that it had already adjudicated all of Fuentes’ claims, including public injunctive relief,” said his brief.