Renee Gabet and her company Annie Oakley Enterprises, plaintiffs in the trademark infringement lawsuit against Amazon, seek leave to file a sur-reply opposing Amazon’s motion to strike its outside counsel, Robert Cruzen of Klarquist Sparkman, from the plaintiffs’ witness list (see 2304120004), said their motion Tuesday (docket 1:22-cv-02246) in U.S. District Court for Southern Indiana in Indianapolis. Amazon’s reply to the plaintiffs’ opposition to the motion to strike “makes new arguments that it should have made” in its original motion, and it “misstates the law,” said the motion. Amazon’s claim that other Amazon employees have the same knowledge as Cruzen is contradicted by Amazon’s own interrogatory answers during discovery, it said. Cruzen remains the only person known to the plaintiffs with “knowledge on crucial issues,” it said. Amazon bears the burden of proving other Amazon employees had the same knowledge as Cruzen, “and it offers no such evidence,” it said. Putting Amazon’s lack of evidence aside, Cruzen “designated himself the point person for receiving details of accused infringement,” it said. “If Cruzen shared this with Amazon employees, Amazon should have identified those employees in its interrogatory answers,” it said. Gabet and her company allege that Amazon turns a blind eye to the trademark infringement taking place under its watch.
Plaintiff Trisha Teperson “is without sufficient knowledge” to form a belief for her allegations about Nogin’s pricing actions on its e-commerce platform, said the defendant’s Thursday answer (docket 8:23-cv-00281) to Teperson’s February false advertising class action in U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana. Nogin “deceptively” advertised products from a “false reference price,” the San Diego resident alleged.
The Supreme Court on Monday granted review of two cases concerning questions about whether it's constitutional for public officials to block critics on social media.
Amazon on Friday removed to U.S. District Court for Southern New York from New York County Supreme Court the petition of Amazon third-party seller Shenzhen Zongheng Domain Network to vacate a $507,619 arbitration award in Amazon’s favor. Amazon had declined to disburse the $507,619 in sales proceeds to the seller after “uncovering” that it was “manipulating customer product reviews to artificially and deceptively inflate the perceived value of the goods it was selling in the Amazon store,” said Amazon’s notice of removal (docket 1:23-cv-03334).
Plaintiff Daniel Graham seeks leave to file a second amended Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint to add VoIP provider TalkAsia as his first named defendant, said his motion Wednesday (docket 1:23-cv-00254) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin. In a period spanning at least five months through August, Graham alleges he received more than a dozen unsolicited calls to his cellphone from the phone number 254-268-7594. His previous two complaints named 25 fictitious John Does as defendants because the originator of the calls was unknown. After serving a subpoena on telecommunications services provider Onvoy, he learned the number was registered to TalkAsia, said his motion for leave. “As no party has appeared in this cause,” Graham assumes his motion for leave is “effectively unopposed,” it said.
U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer for Central California in Los Angeles, on the court’s own motion, removed from the April 24 calendar plaintiff John Doe’s motion to remand his privacy case against the Cedars-Sinai health system to Los Angeles County Superior Court (see 2304100044), said a text-only entry Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-870). The court will take the motion under submission, and “will set a new hearing date if it decides oral argument would be helpful,” said the entry. The complaint, which originated in Los Angeles County Superior Court before Cedars-Sinai removed it, alleges the health system shared patients’ sensitive and protected personal identifiable information with unrelated parties including Facebook, Google and Microsoft Bing without patients’ consent.
Samsung failed to disclose its replacement policy for defective TVs in the product warranty, alleged a customer in a Tuesday fraud complaint (docket CL-23-1584) in Texas District Court, Hidalgo County. Hidalgo County resident Rolando Quintana, an attorney, bought a 55-inch Samsung OLED TV in December that stopped working March 8. After Samsung’s local repair service was “unreliable” in Quintana’s pursuit of getting the TV repaired, the customer contacted Samsung for an alternate repair company, which didn’t return calls, said the plaintiff. Samsung offered to replace the TV with a “similar,” more expensive QLED model, attempting to “strong arm” Quintana into accepting it, he said. When he examined the similar model at a Best Buy store, “it became evident” Samsung was “attempting to pawn off an inferior television,” said the complaint. Quintana sent Samsung a demand letter under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, leading a manager to call him to “make things right.” When Quintana told the Samsung manager he wanted the exact TV he had purchased, or the 2023 version, the manager said those weren’t in stock. When he asked for clarification, the manager told Quintana the warranty division "has a stock of televisions of its own," different from the TVs sold on the company website. The manager offered Quintana a $1,799 coupon to use on the Samsung website, but the customer would have to pay for taxes “and presumably the shipping expenses,” he said, saying that information wasn’t spelled out in literature or on the website. Quintana seeks economic, exemplary and mental anguish damages, interest and attorney’s fees: a minimum $5,000 for the court of original jurisdiction; $15,000 to respond to an appeal in the state appeals court and $20,000 as “reasonable and necessary” attorney’s fees to respond to an appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.
Plaintiffs’ Craigville Telephone and Consolidated Telephone’s motion for judgment on their claims for conspiracy and punitive damages in the false ring tones case against T-Mobile should be granted, and the conspiracy and punitive damages claims dismissed, said the defendant in a Tuesday reply memorandum in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago (docket 1:19-cv-07190). The court’s February ruling (see 2302100007) dismissing the conspiracy claim against Inteliquent “should apply equally to the identical claim” against T-Mobile, said the carrier. Plaintiffs claim T-Mobile waved its choice of law argument by not raising it in its answer or original motion to dismiss, but 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals law "holds otherwise,” T-Mobile said. Plaintiffs suggest a ruling on the motion should be stayed while they engage in “months of further discovery” that they say “should reveal” information or “may bear on” choice of law, said the reply. But the motion is addressed to plaintiffs’ “current pleading, not a hypothetical future” that plaintiffs may seek leave to file, it said. Plaintiffs’ argument ignores “years of discovery that has already occurred,” mostly after plaintiffs “were put on notice” by Inteliquent’s Rule 12(c) motion that choice of law could influence whether they could state a cognizable conspiracy claim, the filing said. Future discovery -- call detail records and depositions concerning documents already produced -- “will not change that the alleged conduct occurred in multiple states, or that alleged injury was incurred where the plaintiffs are located,” it said, saying those are the facts that influenced the court’s dismissal of the conspiracy claim against Inteliquent. On plaintiffs’ contention they need months of discovery to reveal information sufficient to amend their second amended complaint, T-Mobile said an amendment “would change nothing.” Their “mounting record of evidence of ‘supposed conspiratorial conduct’ is “not materially different than what is already in” the second amended complaint, it said. Plaintiffs claim T-Mobile conspired to insert fake local ring back tones instead of connecting calls to rural areas with expensive routing fees.
PHILADELPHIA -- Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) challenged state enforcers Tuesday to collaboratively address privacy and social media issues, speaking at a National Association of Attorneys General meeting. North Carolina AG Josh Stein (D) asked an algorithms panel later for suggestions on what states can do amid a rise of AI chatbots like ChatGPT.
Following a status report from parties in a cell tower dispute, U.S. District Judge James Graham issued an order (docket 2:23-cv-00764) Friday extending the temporary restraining order for 14 days (see Ref: 2304110035]), said a filing Friday in District Court for Southern Ohio in Columbus. The parties, STC Two, and property owner Thomas Branham, who owns the land where STC has a tower, have engaged in “meaningful negotiations” concerning potential resolution, said Graham, who didn’t oppose their request for an extension. “Considering both parties’ participation in negotiation and the benefits of giving the parties additional time to resolve the dispute” under terms of the original restraining order, “there is good cause to extend” it, he said. Branham, who owns the property where STC has a cell tower, installed a padlock at the entrance of the tower site, in breach of his lease to STC Two, and refused to remove it. Branham continued to obstruct the Global Signal company’s access to the cellsite “in blatant violation” of the lease, which entitles its employees to access “24 hours per day, 7 days per week,” the complaint said. In his trespass counterclaim, Branham said STC built and placed the cell tower on his property, which is enclosed by metal fencing. The tower wasn’t placed within the boundaries of the easement Branham granted, he said, so when STC employees and customers access the tower, they “must traverse defendant’s land to gain access,” he said. Another status report is due by April 24.