U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas for Southern New York ordered plaintiff Israel Mertz to respond by Tuesday to defendant Verizon Wireless’ April 30 request to file a motion to compel arbitration (docket 7:22-cv-10938) and stay proceedings in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) lawsuit. The court will address the pre-motion request at a scheduled conference May 18, said Karas’ Thursday filing in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in White Plains. Mertz claims Verizon Wireless violated the FCRA by improperly sending his wireless service account to collections and inaccurately reporting his account to credit reporting agencies (see Ref:2302240023]). Mertz also named Trans Union in the suit. Verizon contends it and Mertz agreed before the lawsuit, via its customer agreement, to arbitrate any dispute that arises out of services Mertz received from the carrier. As a result, the action should be stayed, pending arbitration, it said.

Monday’s unanimous decision of the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court in Achey v. Cellco Partnership (docket 3160849) supports the arguments of 27 California consumers in MacClelland v. Cellco when they urge the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm the district court’s denial of Verizon’s motion to compel their claims to arbitration (see 2303190001), said the consumers’ citation of supplemental authorities Wednesday (docket 22-16020). The New Jersey court said the “identical” Verizon arbitration agreement under review in Verizon’s 9th Circuit appeal of the denial in MacClelland “was completely unenforceable because it was permeated by unconscionability,” said the citation. “This is exactly the conclusion reached by the district court” in MacClelland, “and this is exactly the conclusion” the plaintiff-appellees ask the 9th Circuit to reach in Verizon's appeal, it said. The Achey court said the district court’s MacClelland decision is especially persuasive because California and New Jersey contract law are substantially similar, especially in their application of unconscionability, it said.

SES keeps attempting to retry on appeal its litigation over the collapse of the C-Band Alliance (CBA), "ignoring the evidence the factfinder found credible and relying exclusively on that which he did not," appellee Intelsat told the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in a supplemental response brief (docket 3:22-cv-668) Monday. The brief, and SES' (see 2304190003), were in response to a series of questions asked by Judge Keith Phillips about such items as what work SES did to help Intelsat clear the C band and how the CBA expenses were covered. Intelsat said that before the FCC opted for a C-band public auction, it and SES engaged in extensive joint efforts, but afterward SES "contributed nothing of monetary value to Intelsat with respect to the FCC’s Final Order." Whether or not the two companies were sharing CBA costs, they weren't sharing any clearing costs under the FCC's order, it said.

Plaintiff Miranda Bennett reached a settlement of her Fair Credit Reporting Act claims against defendant Spring Oaks Capital, a furnisher of consumer credit information to consumer reporting agencies, said her notice Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-00091) in U.S. District Court for Southern Alabama in Selma. Her claims against the remaining defendants, including Verizon and the three major credit reporting agencies, “remain pending,” said the notice. Bennett alleges she was victimized by inaccurate credit reporting when a fraudulent Verizon account was left to fester on her credit profile, and Verizon and the credit agencies did nothing to investigate it or remove it (see 2303160051).

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asked Dexon to file a response or opposition by May 12 to the petition for mandamus relief filed April 25 by Cisco and CDW, said a clerk’s notice Tuesday (docket 23-40257). Cisco and CDW seek reversal of a district court’s denial of a motion to transfer under the first-to-file rule (see 2304250056). Cisco sued Dexon, a reseller of computer networking equipment, in the Northern District of California to thwart Dexon’s alleged sales of counterfeit Cisco equipment. Dexon countersued, alleging Cisco wields monopoly power in the market for networking equipment, and that it recruited reseller CDW to help promote its anticompetitive conduct. The California court dismissed Dexon’s counterclaims with leave to amend. But rather than reassert those counterclaims in California, and while the California litigation remained pending, Dexon refiled the claims against Cisco and CDW in the Eastern District of Texas. Cisco, joined by CDW, moved unsuccessfully to transfer the case to the Northern District of California.

Charter Communications' royalty payment obligations to Prewitt Management for its Texas municipal cable permits ended when Charter received state-issued certificates of franchise authority (SICFA) for each, but it ratified those permit agreements with Prewitt when it continued to make royalty payments, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel for the Western District of Texas said last week. In a docket 1:16-CV-1268 findings of fact and conclusions of law, he said Charter's refusal as of January 2017 to make the next quarterly payments breached the ratified agreements, with whatever remained of the permits automatically reverting to Prewitt. Charter sued Prewit seeking a declaratory judgment that the Prewitt agreements were no longer enforceable since SICFAs replaced city permits in Texas, plus monetary damages for payments made to Prewitt between 2006 and 2016, after SICFAs replaced municipal permits. Prewitt countersued for breach of contract, arguing Charter ratified its royalty obligations by continuing to make quarterly payments even after Texas went to a state franchising system for cable systems. Yeakel said Charter doesn't owe Prewitt damages or continued royalties after October 21, 2016, when it made its last royalty payment and Prewitt doesn't owe Charter damages for the payments Charter made between 2006 and 2016. Charter didn't comment Tuesday.

The FAA failed to comply "with bedrock federal law" when it didn't analyze the environmental and community impacts of SpaceX's space launch activities in Boca Chica, Texas, and didn't require mitigation to offset those impacts, environmental groups and a Native American tribe told a federal court Monday as they sought to force the agency to do an environmental impact statement (EIS). The FAA didn't comment. In docket 1:23-cv-01204 before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the plaintiffs said the lands ringing SpaceX"s Boca Chica launch facility "are of extraordinary conservation value" and SpaceX activities there will adversely affect the wildlife habitat there. It said launch activities necessitate frequent closure of nearby Boca Chica Beach, which is sacred to the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas and which is used by others for recreation and subsistence fishing. They said the programmatic environmental assessment the FAA did undertake is not as thorough as an EIS. Suing are the Center for Biological Diversity, American Bird Conservancy, Surfrider Foundation, Save RGV and the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation. The suit repeatedly references the April explosion at Boca Chica of a SpaceX Super Heavy test launch (see 2304200037).

AT&T and T-Mobile agreed to settle all claims in AT&T’s false-advertising complaint against its competitor, said their joint notice Friday (docket 4:22-cv-00760) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas in Sherman. “The parties are currently finalizing the settlement agreement and dismissal papers,” said the notice. They ask the court to stay all deadlines for 30 days “so that appropriate dismissal papers may be submitted,” it said. Notice of the settlement came just over a week after AT&T and T-Mobile told the court they agreed on Dallas-based Chris Nolland as a mediator (see 2304210037). AT&T alleged T-Mobile’s ad and marketing statements are false under the Lanham Act when they claim AT&T bans senior discounts and 92% of seniors in the U.S. can’t get a wireless discount from Verizon or AT&T because they don’t live in Florida.

Defendant Trans Union seeks leave to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a stay of discovery pending the outcome of that motion in the Dec. 28 complaint that alleges inaccurate and misleading information provided by Verizon led to erroneous debt collection actions against plaintiff Israel Mertz (see 2212300022), said Trans Union’s letter motion Thursday (docket 7:22-cv-10938) to U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas for Southern New York in White Plains. Mertz “falsely claims” Trans Union violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, it told the judge. His claim “rests on the argument that Trans Union was required to make a legal determination” whether Verizon entered into an agreement to resolve Mertz’s debt after it had already been sent to collections, it said. Mertz doesn’t dispute “there were problems with his payments” and doesn’t dispute that the account was sent to collections, it said. Case law says the court should dismiss Mertz’s claims against Trans Union with prejudice, because he fails to allege “a required factual inaccuracy and merely alleges a legal dispute between himself and Verizon,” it said. His claim he had an agreement with Verizon on his unpaid account “is a legal defense relying on a contractual agreement with Verizon Wireless and is not cognizable under the FCRA,” it said.

Fox Corp.'s $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems is "significant," but Fox will still have more than $3 billion in cash on its balance sheet, S&P Global said Thursday. Pointing to a related defamation suit from Smartmatic and potential shareholder suits, S&P said lawsuit-related costs could increase the company's debt but not enough to lower its credit rating.