U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff for Southern New York signed a memorandum order Monday (docket 1:22-cv-08703) dismissing debt collector CBE Customer Solutions’ first counterclaim that Verizon breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in their April 2014 master services agreement (MSA) (see 2211210034). He left intact CBE’s second counterclaim alleging Verizon was unjustly enriched when CBE assisted in Verizon’s defense of a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action that Verizon asserts originated from the negligence of a CBE employee. The class action evolved into a settlement valued at nearly $4 million. CBE alleged Verizon breached the implied covenant by settling with a class that contained people who weren't injured by CBE’s actions. But Rakoff said Verizon’s lawsuit to enforce the MSA’s indemnity provisions didn't breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, as CBE alleged. CBE’s first counterclaim asserts Verizon undertook a litigation strategy that unnecessarily increased the likelihood of risk to CBE to the sole benefit of Verizon during the class action, said Rakoff: “But these allegations, even if taken as true, do not support a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”

Plaintiff Ramon Fontanez settled his June 17 complaint against Arrow Reliance on allegations the specialty pet foods company designed and ran a website that wasn't accessible to and independently usable by blind and visually impaired consumers, said a notice Friday (docket 1:22-cv-05098) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York. “A settlement agreement is in the process of being finalized between the parties,” said the notice. Once the agreement is fully executed, and Fontanez receives the “consideration required,” the parties will request that the case be dismissed and closed, it said. It asked the court to stay action and adjourn all deadlines and conferences for 60 days. Settlement terms weren't disclosed. Fontanez, the plaintiff in a similar complaint against the kitchenware website Food52.com, asked U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams in Manhattan in a letter Friday (docket 1:22-cv-09584) to refer the case to mediation while settlement talks continue between the parties. Food52.com requests an initial status conference, said the letter.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court docketed the appeal Friday (docket 23-10104) of Darrel Seybold, a former Charter Communications sales manager who claims he was wrongfully terminated after exposing Charter’s allegedly unlawful conduct. U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr for Northern Texas in Dallas dismissed Seybold’s claims in a Jan. 3 order for lack of specificity in his allegations. Seybold “knew through his position that Charter was misreporting information in its quarterly and annual reports” by double-counting the number of new "primary service unit" accounts in its enterprise fiber business, alleged his April 1 amended complaint.

Avid Telecom’s first amended defamation complaint fails to state a claim against TransNexus upon which relief can be granted because TransNexus “promptly removed, withdrew and retracted the alleged defamatory statements” about Avid CEO Michael Lansky that are at issue in this dispute, said the defendant’s answer Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-04829) in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta. Avid alleges TransNexus published on its blog a transcript of a Skype conversation depicting one of the participants seeking to unlawfully mask illegal robocalls so they wouldn’t get flagged by federal investigatory agencies. But instead of identifying the actual Skype participant, TransNexus allegedly published a doctored version depicting one of the parties to be Lansky (see 2212080050). Because Avid and Lansky “were and are the subjects” of numerous state attorney general robocalling enforcement proceedings, their claims against TransNexus “may be barred in whole or part by the libel-proof plaintiff doctrine,” said TransNexus. The alleged defamatory statements “do no actual harm” to Avid’s and Lansky’s reputations, “which were already impacted, poor and tarnished by said enforcement proceedings,” it said. “TransNexus submits that some or all of the alleged defamatory statements were privileged forms of free speech concerning matters of public interest, which would not support an award of damages in the within action.”

The U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit granted Google’s mandamus petition Wednesday, vacating a U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Waco order that denied the transfer of Jawbone Innovations’ patent infringement complaint against the company to Northern California (see 2211160043). The Federal Circuit directed that the transfer now take place, said its order (docket 23-101). U.S. District Judge Alan Albright said the factor considering all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive weighs against transfer, but “this was clearly erroneous,” said the Federal Circuit. Albright also said the cost of attending trial for willing witnesses weighed only slightly in favor of transfer, it said: “This was clearly erroneous as this factor weighs heavily in favor of transfer.” It’s “evident” that Northern California “would be more convenient for potential witnesses,” it said. “Four factors favor transfer and four factors are neutral. No factor weighs against transfer.” Albright “clearly erred in finding otherwise and its decision to deny Google’s motion to transfer was a clear abuse of discretion.”

U.S. District Judge Todd Hughes for Delaware signed an order Tuesday setting Feb. 17 as the deadline for AT&T to respond to Averon’s first amended complaint, said a text-only entry (docket 1:22-cv-01341). Averon filed the amended complaint Jan. 5 under seal, and the public version is heavily redacted (see 2301100002). AT&T is alleged to have courted Averon as a business partner for its passwordless authentication technology, only to use Averon’s misappropriated trade secrets to form the ZenKey joint venture with T-Mobile and Verizon as a competitor to Averon. The amended complaint names “AT&T Corp.” and “AT&T Services” as the “proper” AT&T defendants and drops “AT&T Inc.” without prejudice.

The U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit denied Nimitz Technologies’ combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc of the court’s previous denial of its petition for mandamus relief, said its order Tuesday (docket 23-103). Nimitz sought mandamus relief to vacate the Nov. 10 order by U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly in Delaware to produce bank records, emails and other documents for his investigation into third-party funding of four Nimitz patent infringement lawsuits, including materials the company maintains are protected by attorney-client privilege (see 2212230001)

Lumen's CenturyTel Service group sued an engineering consulting company for breach of contract after a building it bought in Miami as its new gateway for area telecommunications services suffered a partial collapse, leading to $1.5 million in costs to retrofit the building structurally, said a complaint (docket 1:23-cv-253) in U.S. District Court in Colorado Friday. Lumen relied on Communications Engineering Consultant, Columbus, Ohio, for its assessment before making the purchase; the firm concluded the building had sufficient structural capacity for Lumen’s intended use, the complaint said. Lumen later discovered the building lacked the required structural capacity when a second-floor concrete slab partially collapsed during renovations, it said. Lumen seeks compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial and awards of legal costs and attorneys’ fees.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup for Northern California in San Francisco signed an order Tuesday (docket 5:22-cv-08030) directing plaintiff Seema Nair and defendant to voluntarily dismiss their dispute by noon PST Feb. 8. Nair and T-Mobile stipulate to resolve Nair’s claims through binding arbitration but asked that the action be stayed so the parties may eventually want to litigate the enforcement of any award issued by the arbitrator, said the judge's order. “That is not a basis for which this action may be held in abeyance,” it said. If the parties don’t voluntarily dismiss the case, Alsup will schedule a case management conference, his order said. T-Mobile’s “grossly negligent” and “reckless approach to security for SIM swap fraud” shows it tried “to profit from the problem rather than fix it,” alleged Nair in her Dec. 12 complaint (see 2212130031).

A status conference via ZoomGov is set for Wednesday at 10:30 a.m. CST in the eight-state robocalling lawsuit to address the bankruptcy filing of defendant Michael Smith and his notice of automatic stay in his case (see 2301200027), said a case manager's notice Thursday (docket 4:20-cv-02021) in U.S. District Court for Southern Texas in Houston. Smith filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition Jan. 18 and said the automatic stay provisions of Section 362 of the bankruptcy code apply to the case against him and his company, Health Advisors of America.