The plaintiffs in the putative social media class action in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles (see 2301030036) contend the “landmark” preliminary injunction granted July 4 against federal officials by U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty for Western Louisiana in Monroe (see 2307050042) is “directly related to adjudicating” the viewpoint discrimination claims asserted in their own case, said their notice Wednesday (docket 2:22-cv-09438). Doughty’s injunction bars the federal officials from engaging in 10 forms of interactions with social media companies. DOJ filed notice Wednesday that it will appeal Doughty's injunction to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (see 2307050067). DOJ expects to expeditiously seek a stay of Doughty's ruling, said an official. Plaintiffs Richard Jackson, Julie Briggs and Gregg Buchwalter in the Los Angeles class action allege the Democratic National Committee and the Biden administration colluded to suppress and censor disfavored speakers, viewpoints and content on social media platforms.

Twitter refused to engage its former employees in arbitration, despite having compelled those employees in previous lawsuits to arbitrate their claims, alleged plaintiff Fabien Ho Ching Ma’s petition Monday (docket 3:23-cv-03301) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco to compel Twitter to arbitration. Ma and about 2,000 other former Twitter employees “signed nearly identical arbitration agreements that state that they are applicable to any disputes arising from or related to their employment with Twitter or separation of their employment,” said the petition. Most of those agreements say the parties would bring any claims in arbitration before Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, it said. An employee who brings an arbitration case to JAMS must pay an initial filing fee, but the employer must pay all other arbitration fees, including fees for the arbitrator, it said. After Ma filed his arbitration demand Jan. 11, an arbitrator was appointed to his case and a final hearing scheduled for December, said his petition. But on June 2, after about 2,000 individual arbitrations had been filed against Twitter, the company “reversed course,” it said. Despite knowing JAMS rules require employers to pay the full arbitrator fees in employment cases, Twitter wrote JAMS, “requesting that all arbitration fees be split equally among the parties,” except in California and a few other states, including Nevada and Oregon, it said. When JAMS denied the request, Twitter responded by refusing to proceed with arbitrations in most states outside California, it said. JAMS answered by declining to arbitrate any disputes in which Twitter refused to pay, and then notified claimants their scheduled conferences and hearings would be canceled, it said.

The Biden administration will appeal a federal court ruling imposing a preliminary injunction on certain departments and agencies to limit their communication with social media platforms, said plaintiffs’ notice of appeal (docket 3:22-cv-01213) to the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Wednesday in U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana in Monroe. U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty granted 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 in Missouri v. Biden (see 2307050042). The freedom of speech 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. Under the injunction, most of the defendants are "enjoined and restrained" from 10 forms of interactions with social media companies. Top of the list is the requirement that they're not to meet with the companies "for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms," said the ruling. Expressly "not prohibited" by the injunction are eight forms of interactions involving criminal activity, national security or voter misinformation, Doughty’s order said. One guideline expressly doesn't bar the government defendants from contacting social media companies for the purpose of "exercising permissible public government speech promoting government policies or views on matters of public concern." DOJ expects to request a stay of the district court's decision "expeditiously.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled in-person oral argument Sept. 14 at 9 a.m. PDT in Verizon’s appeal of the district court decision denying its motion to compel the dispute of 27 California consumers to arbitration (see 2303190001), said a text-only notice Friday (docket 22-16020). Though the case is scheduled for oral argument, the panel may decide to submit the case on the briefs instead, said the notice. Attorneys have the option to appear in person at the courthouse or remotely by video, it said. Opting to appear remotely by video won’t require a motion, it said: “The court expects and supports the fact that some attorneys and some judges will continue to appear remotely.”

The FAA denied allegations brought by environmental groups that it should have done more study of the likely environmental effects of SpaceX launches on a section of rural Texas (see 2305010055). The FAA's answer filed Friday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (docket 23-cv-01204) contained no affirmative defenses, just denials of the plaintiffs' allegations. In a proposed answer, SpaceX as a proposed intervenor-defendant also point by point denied the allegations.

Amazon and its former third-party seller Jiakeshu Technology agreed on a proposed briefing schedule on Jiakeshu’s petition to vacate an arbitration award in Amazon’s favor, Amazon counsel John Magliery of Davis Wright wrote U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams for Southern New York in Manhattan in a letter Friday (docket 1:22-cv-10119). An arbitrator ruled last summer that Amazon could keep $50,000 in Jiakeshu sales proceeds that Amazon seized after it deactivated the third-party store for paying customers to submit fake positive reviews, and Abrams on June 21 denied Jiakeshu’s motion to remand to New York Supreme Court its petition to vacate that award (see 2306220019). Under the proposed schedule, Amazon’s memorandum of law in opposition to the vacatur petition and in support of its cross-motion to confirm that award would be due July 17. Jiakeshu’s reply memorandum of law in support of its vacatur petition and in opposition to Amazon’s cross-motion to confirm would be due July 31, and Amazon’s reply in support of the cross-motion to confirm Aug. 14.

Two recent Southern District of New York decisions support Amazon’s opposition to the motion of third-party seller Shenzhen Zongheng Domain Network to remand its arbitration vacatur petition to state court (see 2306280002), said Amazon’s notice of supplemental authority Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-03334) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan. Amazon deactivated Zongheng’s account and seized its $507,619 in sales proceeds for allegedly manipulating customer product reviews. An arbitrator ruled in January that Amazon was entitled to keep the money, and Zongheng's petition seeks to vacate that ruling. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon entered a decision and order May 23 denying a motion for remand in the case of U.S. Rising Star v. Amazon (docket 1:23-cv-00778), said the notice. The petitioner in that action is represented by the same counsel as Zongheng and raised “substantially identical arguments” about the court’s exercise of “diversity jurisdiction over that petitioner’s vacatur action,” it said. Then on June 21, U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams entered a memorandum opinion and order in the case of Jiakeshu Technology v. Amazon, denying that petitioner’s motion to remand (see 2306220019), it said. As in Rising Star, the petitioner in Jiakeshu is also represented by the same counsel as Zongheng and raised substantially identical arguments about the court’s exercise of federal question jurisdiction under the New York Convention, it said.

The final June 26 decision at the California Court of Appeals in Jack v. Ring is “relevant” to the 27 consumer plaintiff-appellees trying to defend against Verizon’s bid to reverse a lower court’s denial of its motion to compel their claims to arbitration, said the appellees’ citation of supplemental authorities Wednesday (docket 22-16020) at the 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court. The appellees previously asserted every court that has ruled on the enforceability of the Verizon arbitration clause said the agreement doesn’t clearly delegate arbitrability issues to the arbitrator (see 2305300039). In their citation, the appellees said they contend “the incorporation by reference of arbitral society rules does not clearly and unmistakably delegate questions of arbitrability, particularly when, as here, a party is unsophisticated.” Jack notes the clear and unmistakable delegation standard is higher than the evidentiary standard applicable to other matters of interpreting an arbitration agreement, said the citation. Consequently, it said, the fact that Verizon “can employ traditional rules of construction to envision hypotheticals in which the American Arbitration Association and Better Business Bureau rules might theoretically be harmonizable” doesn’t establish “a clear and unmistakable delegation,” it said.

Amazon “failed its burden” to establish that the U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan has subject-matter jurisdiction over the case involving third-party seller Shenzhen Zongheng Domain Network, said the seller’s reply memorandum of law Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-03334). Shenzhen Zongheng wants its petition to vacate an arbitration award in Amazon’s favor remanded to New York County Supreme Court where it originated before Amazon removed it April 21 to the Southern District of New York (see 2304210001). Amazon deactivated the seller’s account and seized its $507,619 in sales proceeds for allegedly manipulating customer product reviews. An arbitrator ruled in January that Amazon was entitled to keep the money. The removing party “bears the burden of proving that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction,” said the seller’s reply memorandum in further support of the remand. A federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction “can be established through either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction,” and Amazon failed to establish either, it said. The U.S. Supreme Court, in its March 2022 decision in Badgerow v. Walters, “reasoned that a petition to vacate an arbitration award concerns the contractual rights provided in the arbitration agreement, which typically only raises matters of state law,” said the memorandum. “Adjudication of such state-law contractual rights typically belongs in state courts,” it said.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled a dial-in mediation assessment conference July 13 at 10 a.m. PDT in the long-running case that plaintiff-appellant Narciso Fuentes brought against Dish Network, said an order Tuesday (docket 23-15865). Fuentes seeks to reverse the district court’s denial of his motion to remand his case to California Superior Court where it originated in March 2016 (see 2306130017). The case arose out of Dish’s alleged failure to provide cancellation rights disclosures and Spanish-language contracts in connection with the satellite television service agreements it was selling in California. The monolingual Spanish-speaking Fuentes was a Dish customer when his lawsuit was filed, but he ceased being one in August 2017 and hasn’t subscribed since. That left him with lack of Article III standing to pursue public injunctive relief against Dish in federal court.