The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals docketed the appeal Monday (docket 23-15865) of plaintiff-appellant Narciso Fuentes in his seven-year legal fight against Dish Network. Fuentes is seeking to reverse the U.S. District Court for Northern California’s denial of his motion to remand the case to California Superior Court where it originated in March 2016. Fuentes' opening brief is due Sept. 18, with Dish's answering brief due Oct. 17, said a time schedule order. The case arose out of Dish’s failure to provide cancellation rights disclosures and Spanish language contracts in connection with its satellite television service agreements. 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. The injunctive relief Fuentes seeks under California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law would enjoin Dish from future disclosure failures when marketing its services to Spanish-speaking consumers in California.

The parties in the Samsung data breach multidistrict litigation, centralized under U.S. District Judge Christine O’Hearn for New Jersey in Camden, “continue to work diligently and cooperatively” to negotiate the terms of the confidentiality order and protocol for electronically stored information, the plaintiffs’ interim lead counsel, James Cecchi of Carella Byrne, wrote O’Hearn in a letter Monday (docket 1:23-md-03055). As directed by the court, the parties will be prepared to discuss a short-form complaint at Thursday’s status conference, said Cecchi. Short-form complaints, filed by individual plaintiffs, contain case-specific allegations while referencing the master consolidated complaint that the plaintiffs filed with the court on May 22 (see 2305230049). The parties “are most familiar with the use of short form complaints in the mass tort context,” said Cecchi. The parties are interested in learning how the court envisions using short-form complaints in the Samsung MDL, he said.

The U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose vacated the June 14 case management conference in plaintiff LinkedIn’s fraud case and rescheduled it for Nov. 8 at 10 a.m. PST by telephone, said a text-only entry Wednesday (docket 5:23-cv-00110). LinkedIn’s case management statement, also Wednesday, suggested vacating the conference in light of the July 5 hearing set on its May 31 motion for default judgment against the remaining defendants, the TopSocial24 website and its owner Golam Mostafa. LinkedIn alleges the defendants sell “inauthentic engagement” on the platform, including fake followers, fake comments, fake likes and fake connections (see 2304260001). After admitting to operating TopSocial24 and “expressing contrition” for his unlawful actions, Mostafa “went silent and stopped responding to counsel’s outreach,” said LinkedIn, and that prompted the motion for default judgment (see 2306010002).

U.S. Magistrate Judge Reid Neureiter vacated a scheduling conference for July 27 and replaced it with a telephonic motion hearing on the same day for Google and plaintiff Steve Nichols to argue their positions on Google’s motion to compel arbitration in an April fraud case in U.S. District Court for Colorado in Denver (see 2304240055), said a Thursday minute order (docket 1:23-cv-01022). Google argued in a Tuesday motion to compel that Nichols agreed to dispute claims in a Pixel 5 phone through arbitration when he accepted the phone’s terms of service. Nichols owns three Pixel 5 devices and didn't opt out of the arbitration agreement “in any of the three instances,” Google said.

Lead plaintiff Walleye Group alleges five Intelsat defendants, including former Chairman David McGlade and several major shareholders, “committed actionable insider trading,” said its mediation questionnaire Wednesday (docket 23-15822) in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Walleye is seeking reversal of the district court’s April 26 dismissal of its second amended complaint. Its opening brief is due Aug. 2 (see 2305310058). Walleye alleges the defendants sold more than $245 million of Intelsat stock the evening after they learned the FCC was going to reject Intelsat's “bet-the-company plan” for a private auction of satellite spectrum, which Intelsat previously believed the FCC would support, said the questionnaire. Intelsat’s shares “collapsed” 70% when the public found out about the FCC’s rejection, it said.

SiriusXM engages in a “false advertising and deceptive pricing scheme” when it markets and promotes its music plans “at lower prices than it actually charges,” alleged plaintiffs Christopher Carovillano and Steven Brandt in a class action Monday (docket 1:23-cv-04723) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York. It’s the third known fraud class action filed nationally against SiriusXM in as many weeks (see 2305160038). All three challenge SiriusXM’s failure to disclose an allegedly concocted “U.S. music royalty fee,” which increases the true price of its music plans by 21.4% above the advertised and promised price for each plan. All three cases are the work of Hattis & Lukacs in Bellevue, Washington, or DeNittis Osefchen in New York and Marlton, New Jersey. SiriusXM didn’t comment.

U.S. District Judge Kai Scott for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia signed an order Monday (docket 2:23-cv-01236) consolidating eight related data breach class actions against debt collector NCB Management Solutions. NCB buys delinquent credit card accounts for collection, and is alleged to have enabled hackers to access the personally identifiable information of hundreds of thousands of account holders (see 2304280036). Scott’s order designates the first-filed Lindquist v. NCB as the lead case. Her order gives the plaintiffs 45 days to July 20 to file their consolidated amended complaint, and the defendants will have 30 days thereafter to answer, move or otherwise respond.

No additional parties can be joined without leave of court to the McDougall v. Samsung fraud class action in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan, said a Thursday case action plan (docket 1:23-cv-00168) from U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield. Initial requests for document production in the false advertising case are due June 15, with responsive documents due by July 31, said the schedule. Not all parties in the class action agreed to conducting proceedings before a U.S. Magistrate Judge, said Schofield. McDougall paid more for the Galaxy S21 smartphone than she would have if she knew she wasn't receiving 128 GB of usable storage space, said her January complaint (see 2301100031). Samsung sold more phones at higher prices than it would have “in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers,” it said. Plaintiffs claim Samsung violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and New York General Business Law, and also charge the phone maker with breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment.

Unless U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield for Southern New York in Manhattan grants Samsung’s pending motion to compel plaintiff Tiffany McDougall’s fraud allegations to arbitration by July 5 (see 2304120020), Samsung also will file a motion to dismiss her class action, the parties wrote the judge in a joint letter Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-00168). McDougall alleges Samsung misrepresented the storage capacity of her Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G smartphone, but it’s “common knowledge” all smartphones, tablets, laptops and desktops “are sold with preloaded content to run the device,” and such content “consumes a portion of the storage space on the device,” said the letter. Samsung’s motion to dismiss will argue McDougall’s complaint “fails to state a claim because it fails to identify any materially misleading representation,” it said. McDougall also fails to allege facts “supporting justifiable reliance for her fraud-based claims, and she similarly fails to satisfy Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standards for those claims,” it said. She additionally fails “to plead facts supporting any breach of contract or warranty, and her unjust-enrichment theory is duplicative of her other theories, and thus fails for the same reasons that her other claims fail,” it said.

LinkedIn seeks a default judgment against the website TopSocial24 and its owner, Golam Mostafa, for failing to appear or otherwise defend against allegations they sell “inauthentic engagement” on the platform, including fake followers, fake comments, fake likes and fake connections (see 2304260001), said its filing Wednesday (docket 5:23-cv-00110) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose. “After admitting to operating TopSocial24 and expressing contrition for his actions” that violated the law, Mostafa “went silent and stopped responding to counsel’s outreach,” it said. “To this day, TopSocial24 advertises the opportunity to buy LinkedIn followers,” it said. TopSocial24 also advertised a “drip-feed” feature through which its customers “could gradually add fake LinkedIn engagement over time, likely in the hopes of evading LinkedIn’s technical defenses and further deceiving members that the engagement is genuine,” it said.