Though voice broadcasting vendor Message Communications and its owner, Robert Mahanian, settled the claims over their alleged roles in the robocall campaign to suppress Black citizens' mail-in votes during the 2020 election, evidence of their liability “remains acutely relevant,” said the attorney for remaining defendants Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman. The two in a memorandum of law Monday (docket 1:20-cv-08668) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York oppose the plaintiffs’ motion in limine to exclude the settling defendants’ evidence and testimony from the Dec. 11 jury damages trial. Though Mahanian and his company settled all claims against them many months before U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero granted summary judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor, Wohl and Burkman “have signaled that they may try to shift blame from themselves to Message and Mahanian in an attempt to limit their damages,” said one of the plaintiffs’ June 22 motions (see 2306260042). Message and Mahanian were brought into the case by the “powerful and influential” New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), said the memorandum. They were “presumptively let out of this case for a nominal settlement or simply for cooperation,” it said. A jury “could properly deduce that Message was thereby induced to lean inward and cooperate with the People,” it said. “As to why Mahanian should be ordered to attend the trial and not some subordinate substitute without actual knowledge, Mahanian’s deposition testimony cannot be cross examined,” said the memorandum. In an age where remote attendance is “now normative,” to allow Mahanian to skip his in-person testimony at trial “would be an injustice,” it said: “Notwithstanding the specter of bias, Mahanian has first person knowledge and a superior understanding of the technology and how to read Message’s call data sheets and what they mean. His testimony is uniquely relevant to the damages phase.”

U.S. District Judge John Koeltl for Southern New York in Manhattan should deny the “misguided” motion of former Amazon third-party seller Longyan Junkai Information Technology to remand to New York County Supreme Court its petition to vacate an arbitration award in Amazon’s favor, said Amazon’s memorandum of law Friday (docket 1:23-cv-04869) in opposition. Longyan seeks the recovery of $461,000 in sales proceeds that Amazon seized when it deactivated the seller’s online store on allegations that it sold counterfeit goods (see 2306270041). The Southern District of New York has federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction over Longyan’s petition, said Amazon’s memorandum. Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act “confers subject matter jurisdiction over actions to confirm or vacate arbitration awards governed by the New York Convention,” it said. The court also has diversity jurisdiction because the parties “are completely diverse,” it said. Junkai’s remand motion is “a confused grab bag of inapposite arguments and authority” that provides no basis to avoid the “clear jurisdiction” of the Southern District of New York, it said.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a Friday order (docket 23-30445), scheduled Aug. 10 oral argument in New Orleans on DOJ’s appeal of the July 4 preliminary injunction that blocked dozens of Biden administration officials from conversing with social media companies about content moderation (see 2307060004). The 5th Circuit, in granting DOJ a temporary stay in the injunction Friday, ordered DOJ’s appeal deferred to the oral argument merits panel that receives the case. DOJ’s opening brief in the appeal is due July 25, with the responding brief from the Republican attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri, the lead plaintiffs in the case, due Aug. 4, said Friday’s order. DOJ’s optional reply brief is due 21 days later, it said.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein for Southern New York in Manhattan scheduled an initial dial-in conference for Sept. 29 at 10 a.m. EDT in Comcast’s case against MaxLinear, said Hellerstein’s signed order Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-04436). Comcast is seeking a preliminary injunction to bar MaxLinear from walking away from its contractual obligations to supply chips for Comcast’s broadband gateways (see 2305300045). MaxLinear committed to continue supplying the chips, but only through Aug. 16, in return for Comcast's agreement to withdraw its motion for a temporary restraining order.

Charter Communications dismissed without prejudice its claims against Bobbie Gilbert, its former director-state government affairs, said Charter’s notice Wednesday (docket 6:23-cv-02717) in U.S. District Court for South Carolina in Greenville. Charter sued Gilbert June 15, seeking an injunction to prevent her from continuing to violate her noncompete agreement and to keep her from misappropriating Charter’s trade secrets after she began working in May for Open Fiber USA, a “direct competitor” (see 2306160040).

U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks for Western Arkansas in Fayetteville scheduled an Aug. 15 in-person hearing at 10 a.m. CDT on NetChoice’s July 7 motion for a preliminary injunction to block Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) from enforcing the state’s new social media age verification law when it takes effect Sept. 1, said the judge’s signed order Wednesday (docket 5:23-cv-05105). Griffin’s response to the motion is due July 27, said the order. If NetChoice opts to file a reply brief, it’s due Aug. 3 and can’t exceed 10 pages, the order said. 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’s injunction motion (see 2307100005). Griffin vowed to vigorously defend the statute in court (see 2306300001).

U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter for Southern New York in Manhattan scheduled a telephonic status conference July 20 at 3 p.m. EDT on the petition by former Amazon third-party seller Cowin Technology to vacate an arbitration award in Amazon’s favor, said Carter’s signed order Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-03054). Cowin is seeking to remand the petition to New York Supreme Court where it originated before Amazon removed it to federal court (see 2305100001). Cowin seeks to recover $1.09 million in sales proceeds that Amazon seized -- and an arbitrator let Amazon keep -- when it accused the seller of violating its business solutions agreement by manipulating product reviews.

Plaintiff Eric Sabatini, a shareholder in Wireless Telecom Group (WTT), a supplier of RF and microwave components to the telecommunications industry, seeks an order from the U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan enjoining the planned Aug. 2 shareholder vote to ratify WTT’s sale to Maury Microwave, said Sabatini’s complaint Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-05974). Maury agreed to buy all of WTT’s outstanding shares for $2.13 a share, WTT announced May 25. But the proxy statement WTT sent shareholders June 28 recommending approval of the transaction “contains materially incomplete and misleading information” about the company’s financial health, alleged the complaint. The failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as WTT stockholders “need such information in order to make a fully informed decision” about the proposed transaction, it said. It’s “imperative” that such violations are “promptly cured” before shareholders are asked to vote on the deal, it said. The proxy also failed to disclose material information about the background of the proposed transaction, it said. The proxy didn’t say, for example, whether the nondisclosure agreements WTT signed with 21 bidders as part of the sale process “contain a ‘don’t-ask, don’t-waive’ standstill provision” that’s currently precluding any of those parties from submitting a “topping bid” for the company, it said.

U.S. District Judge Donald Malloy for Montana in Missoula scheduled in-person oral argument Oct. 12 at 9 a.m. MDT on the motions for a preliminary injunction filed Thursday by plaintiffs in the two consolidated cases against SB-419, Montana’s statewide TikTok ban, to block Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R) from enforcing the measure when it takes effect Jan. 1 (see 2307070002), said Molloy’s signed order Friday (docket 9:23-cv-00061). Knudsen must file a single consolidated brief in opposition to the motions by Aug. 18, and the plaintiffs’ reply is due Sept. 15, said the order. The plaintiffs are challenging SB-419's constitutionality, especially on First Amendment grounds.

Parties in Missouri v. Biden and non-movants in the similar Kennedy v. Biden First Amendment class action may respond by July 19 to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s motion to consolidate his and Children’s Health Defense’s freedom of speech lawsuit, said a Wednesday minute entry (docket 3:23-cv-00381) signed by U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty for Western Louisiana in Monroe. Movants may respond by July 26. Kennedy, a Democratic candidate for president in 2024, moved in April for consolidation of the cases, describing the defendants and facts as “substantially identical (see 2304050007)". The Missouri and Louisiana class action alleges the Biden administration coerced and collaborated with social media companies to control public narrative about COVID-19 vaccine and mask mandates and results from the 2020 election. Kennedy and his Children’s Health Defense organization, “unlike in Missouri v. Biden, do not rest their claims on censorship of their own speech,” Kennedy said: “Rather, Plaintiffs have brought this case as (and on behalf of) social media users, whose right to an uncensored public square is being systematically violated.” Biden administration defendants “misunderstand this case,” said Kennedy in a Tuesday reply memorandum in support of Louisiana AG Jeff Landry (R) and Missouri AG Andrew Bailey’s (R) request for a preliminary injunction against most of the nearly 70 federal government defendants. "Plaintiffs need only show -- and the evidence before the Court clearly establishes -- that Defendants are deliberately 'induc[ing], encourage[ing], or promot[ing]' social media censorship of protected speech," Kennedy said, citing Norwood v. Harrison. If there's "'any fixed star in our constitutional constellation,' as the Supreme Court reaffirmed just days ago, 'it is the principle that the government may not interfere with an uninhibited marketplace of ideas,'” he said, referencing Creative v. Elenis. Doughty granted a preliminary injunction Tuesday to the AGs (see 2307050042) ordering certain departments and agencies to limit their communication with social media platforms; DOJ filed a notice of appeal Wednesday (see note, this issue).