U.S. District Judge James Cain for Western Louisiana in Lake Charles entered an electronic order Wednesday granting the motion of Frank Walker's survivors for oral argument on the cellphone industry's motion to dismiss their RF radiation complaint on grounds that their claims are preempted by federal law. His order set in-person oral argument for March 28 at 10 a.m. CDT. “The issues presented are such that oral argument would benefit the Court” in the disposition of the case, said their motion earlier Wednesday (docket 2:21-cv-00923). Congress never intended to prohibit state actions “for injuries resulting from cell phone use” when it enacted the Communications Act and the Telecommunications Act, said their opposition Tuesday to the motion to dismiss (see 2303010001). The plaintiffs, Walker’s wife and two sons, allege in their April 2021 complaint that the industry covered up information showing many cellphones don’t comply with the FCC’s specific absorption rate limitations for how much RF radiation is absorbed into the human body. This, they allege, led to Walker’s death from brain cancer. The defendants are AT&T, CTIA, Microsoft, Motorola, the Telecommunications Industry Association and ZTE.

A federal court granted Brandenburg Telephone's motion for summary judgment in its lengthy legal fight with Sprint over toll charges from interexchange traffic, per a docket 3:09-cv-109 order last week with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Judge Claria Horn Boom granted Brandenberg's motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract/tariff claim against Sprint and on all of Sprint's counterclaims. She denied Sprint's motion for partial summary judgment on some of its counterclaims and on its affirmative defense of federal preemption. The parties have a March 14 deadline to file briefs on damages issues, what principal is owed, and which interest rate applies, with the parties so far offering different calculations.

Google seeks an order for “limited remand” to the U.S. District Court for Northern California so it may consider whether its grant of summary judgment in Google’s favor applies to the six causes of action that the court set aside at the outset of the case, said its motion Friday (docket 22-16993) in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The six “dormant claims” weren’t “explicitly addressed” in the district court’s order on the 10 litigated claims and its summary judgment order closing the case, said the motion. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzales-Rogers in Oakland said she lacked jurisdiction to consider the fate of the dormant claims while the case is under appeal. The plaintiff-appellants in the appeal, all Chrome browser users alleging that Google improperly failed to disclose certain data collection practices, don’t consent to the motion for limited remand.

Plaintiff Avid Telecom and defendant TransNexus agree their legal fight (see 2212080050) is “complex” because it involves an “unusually large number of claims or defenses,” and will require “extended discovery” and “multiple use of experts,” said their joint preliminary report and discovery plan Friday (docket 1:22-cv-04829) in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta. Avid alleges a Nov. 15 TransNexus blog post that was exposed to 50,000 readers in the telecom industry falsely depicted Avid as an enabler of illicit robocallers. TransNexus contends the blog post was drawn from a petition in which the Indiana attorney general’s office disclosed it was investigating Avid for possible Telemarketing Sales Rules violations and other infractions. It concedes the blog post “inadvertently contained certain errors or insufficiently supported statements,” said the report. After becoming aware of the factual errors and other concerns, TransNexus “promptly removed the inaccurate information from the blog, then removed the blog entirely,” it said. “TransNexus then appropriately retracted the blog,” and issued a notice of retraction and an apology, it said. Avid contends the retraction and apology were insufficient to lure back major customers that abandoned the brand. The parties don’t consent to bring their case before a magistrate judge but agree there’s “a possibility of settlement” before or after discovery, having held settlement discussions Feb. 16, said the report.

The FCC provided "no evidence" that it "actually reviewed and accepted" the Universal Service Administrative Co.'s figures for the Universal Service Fund 2021 Q4 contribution factor, Consumers' Research told the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The commission "couldn't even be bothered to issue a separate approval document," the group said in a letter posted Monday in docket 21-3886. The group said such "rubber stamping" violates the private nondelegation doctrine, citing the court's recent ruling in Oklahoma v. United States regarding the FTC' and the Horseracing Authority. The FCC disagreed in a letter posted Monday, saying USAC is "subordinate to a federal agency" and the commission "exercises extensive oversight." USAC "has no rulemaking or policy-making authority," the FCC said.

T-Mobile seeks an order dismissing with prejudice Michigan First Credit Union’s first amended complaint for failure to state a claim “for indemnification or contribution,” said its Feb. 27 motion (docket 2:22-cv-13159) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan in Detroit. T-Mobile’s failure to stop SIM-swap fraudsters from draining customers’ bank accounts forces financial institutions to replace the pilfered funds when required to do so under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and First Michigan seeks repayment of the funds from T-Mobile (see 2302060049). Michigan First “fails to state a claim for indemnification or contribution for a federal liability under the EFTA because the EFTA does not provide for those remedies,” said T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss. In enacting “a comprehensive statutory scheme governing unauthorized transactions,” Congress could have but didn’t create “a mechanism for financial institutions to seek indemnification or contribution from others to pay for their statutory obligations,” it said. The court should decline Michigan First’s invitation to create "a new legal remedy Congress did not authorize.” In raising a claim for indemnification or contribution for a “state liability” under the Michigan Electronic Funds Transfer Act (MEFTA), the statute can’t be “the source for Michigan First’s claims” against T-Mobile, it said. The Federal Reserve Board “has determined the sole MEFTA provision on which Michigan First relies is preempted by the EFTA,” it said. “Michigan First therefore has no MEFTA liability,” it said. “Contribution and indemnity claims based on the MEFTA are preempted because allowing those claims would allow remedies -- contribution and indemnity -- not available under federal law.”

Charter Communications and its Spectrum affiliate in Florida seek the voluntary dismissal of their 11th U.S. Circuit appeal that sought to cut off the supply of free equipment and services to a legacy subscriber, said their motion Thursday (docket 22-13931). Charter and Spectrum, as successor companies to Sanlando Cablevision and Storer Communications, in which plaintiff Harry Jacobs was a shareholder, sought to overturn a district court’s order granting summary judgment in Jacobs’ favor. Jacobs successfully sued to force Charter and Spectrum to continue supplying him with free equipment and services under a lifetime shareholder agreement he signed with Sanlando Cablevision before Storer bought it in 1983 (see 2212120034). As successor to that agreement, Spectrum provided Jacobs with free cable TV, home phone and high-speed internet services and related products since 2016. Jacobs’ account was “consistent” with those of other customers who received complimentary devices and services. But he sued after learning he wasn’t receiving all channels or the fastest internet speeds that Spectrum offered, nor was he receiving the mobile phones and wireless service that Spectrum offers paying customers. Jacobs’ lawyer takes no position on the motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, said an 11th Circuit text-only docket entry.

Both the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and Intelsat are distorting the C-Band Alliance (CBA) agreement's operative text and ignoring key evidence, showing why reversal is warranted, appellant SES told the U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia in a reply brief Friday (docket 3:22-cv-668). SES said it and Intelsat secured accelerated C-band relocation payments by working together, so Intelsat has no basis for keeping nearly $900 million more than SES. It said if the CBA agreement doesn't apply, then SES has a valid argument for unjust enrichment from Intelsat’s concerted efforts to deceive it about the status of what was to be a 50-50 split. SES is appealing the bankruptcy court's dismissal of its claim against Intelsat (see 2212270003). Intelsat's outside counsel didn't comment.

Helix Telecom wrongfully terminated phone numbers of a Michigan insurance company, alleged a complaint Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-10499) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan in Detroit. The Wyoming-based telecom provider has not secured an FCC license to conduct telecommunications services in Michigan, said the complaint. Plaintiff NBT Associates, which manages business operations of Allegiance Insurance in Kent County, Michigan, has had four phone numbers associated with its business for about 20 years and has been a customer of Helix since February 2017. Two of the numbers being serviced by Helix hadn't functioned for several months, and after plaintiffs contacted the telecom provider, it restored the numbers, said the complaint. After Helix restored the lines, plaintiffs switched service to another service provider. The plaintiff is claiming a property right to the telephone numbers. In January, plaintiffs discovered that phones for certain accounts weren’t working properly for people calling from outside the Helix system, who heard a busy signal with no call forwarding, the complaint said. Helix claimed plaintiffs violated its terms of service by porting numbers to another provider and refused to allow the numbers to be ported to a new carrier, the complaint said. Plaintiffs’ underwriters contacted the company threatening to sever their insurance agreements because Helix canceled its telephone numbers, “and the underwriter and customers are unable to contact Plaintiffs,” the complaint said. The lawsuit alleges breach of contract and tortious interference with contractor relationships and business expectancy. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction restraining Helix from terminating their phone numbers and an order that it immediately port or release them to plaintiffs’ new telecom provider.

The Arkansas Court of Appeals overturned a circuit court decision on cable provider arbitration clauses, finding in favor of Suddenlink, said an opinion Wednesday. The Clark County (Arkansas) Circuit Court “erred when it denied Suddenlink’s motion to compel arbitration,” the court said. Suddenlink customers Ronnie and Debbie Francis argued they didn’t agree to have disputes with Suddenlink settled through arbitration, but the Court of Appeals said they had assented to the terms of Suddenlink’s Residential Services Agreement (RSA), which requires signatories to submit to binding arbitration, when they paid invoices from the company. “The Francises’ payment of the invoices that they received from Suddenlink, which directed them to the RSA available on Suddenlink’s website, manifested their assent to its terms, and the arbitration provision otherwise appears in writing on Suddenlink’s website,” the opinion said. “The claims in the Francises’ complaint alleging breach of contract and violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practice Act clearly fall within the broad scope of the RSA’s arbitration provision,” the Court of Appeals said.