AT&T and Core Communications continued finger-pointing Friday in the latter’s legal fight to recover $11.4 million in unpaid access services charges from AT&T. The two sides disagree on who bears the burden of proof in showing the calls at issue were legitimate and not improper robocalls (see 2212280001). Defendant AT&T refused to pay plaintiff Core for its access services, claiming nearly all the calls that CoreTel affiliates in Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia and West Virginia connected were fraudulent. Core’s arguments it provided access services on “actual calls originated by genuine end users -- and did not bill for improper robocalls -- misstate the law” by failing to acknowledge “the default rule that plaintiffs ordinarily bear the burden of proof,” said AT&T’s opposition brief (docket 2:21-cv-02771) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Core’s argument “is also premised on absurd and unreasonably narrow views of its common carrier obligations,” views that the FCC already said are “unlawful,” it said. Core is also wrong in claiming its access services tariffs, which Core unilaterally drafted, “somehow excuse it from proving that it provided genuine access services, and did not route or enable improper robocalls,” said AT&T. “Simply because Core elected not to include detailed tariff provisions that bar access charges on improper robocalls does not mean that such charges are authorized by the tariffs.” Core’s opposition brief argued AT&T is trying to convince the court “to create new telecommunications law to use not only as a shield against CoreTel’s claims, but also as a sword to use against other carriers in other compensation disputes.” AT&T is asking for the court’s blessing “to do what it has done here on a larger scale: withhold all monies it owes to a carrier (even when AT&T was paid for the same traffic by its own customers),” said Core. AT&T’s arguments are “better suited for a rulemaking proceeding at the FCC advocating for the imposition of new and additional burdens on wholesalers or intermediate carriers,” said Core. “This, however, is a collection action, not a rulemaking proceeding,” it said. CoreTel “has a burden to prove a breach of contract, and a breach of contract only,” it said.
Challenges to the FCC’s USF program filed in three federal circuits by Consumers Research raise larger questions about the nondelegation doctrine and how the FCC interprets Section 254 of the Communications Act, lawyers said during an FCBA hybrid event Wednesday. The case could be headed to the Supreme Court, they said.
Vendors of defendant loanDepot began placing “voluminous” marketing solicitation calls in November to plaintiff Zachary Sawicki’s cellphone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, said Sawicki’s first amended class action Monday (docket 2:22-cv-14425) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Pierce. His amended complaint drops “John Does 1-10," representing third-party agents phoning Sawicki on loanDepot’s behalf, after U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the original complaint for violating court rules against fictitious party pleading (see 2301040005). LoanDepot hasn't answered Sawicki’s allegations, but it challenged the TCPA’s constitutionality when it answered an unrelated Texas complaint (see 2212200014).
U.S. District Court Judge Amos Mazzant for Eastern Texas signed an order Friday (docket 4:22-cv-00760) denying defendant T-Mobile’s motion to dismiss AT&T's application for preliminary injunction in a case over alleged false advertising (see 2211020003).
T-Mobile’s assignment of sublease rights to Crown Castle and in turn to Dish Network without notifying Academy Medical prevented Academy “from exercising its contractual right to object to the sublease,” alleged the property owner in a counterclaim Thursday (docket 1:22-cv-00910) in U.S. District Court for New Mexico.
A U.S. District judge for Southern New York signed an order Wednesday (docket 1:22-cv-10119) staying briefing on Jiakeshu Technology’s petition to vacate an arbitration ruling in Amazon’s favor pending resolution of Jiakeshu’s motion to remand the petition to New York Supreme Court where the petition originated. Amazon sought the clarification Tuesday (see 2301110005). Judge Ronnie Abrams’ Dec. 22 order sets a Feb. 10 deadline for Amazon to oppose Jiakeshu’s motion to remand. Jiakeshu seeks recovery of $50,000 in sales proceeds that an arbitrator let Amazon keep after Amazon deactivated Jiakeshu’s third-party store for improperly paying customers to submit positive reviews.
Plaintiff Jamil Hindi’s first amended complaint Wednesday (docket 0:22-cv-62219) alleging Modani violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act deletes the allegation in his original Nov. 28 complaint that accused the furniture retailer also of Florida Telephone Solicitation Act wrongdoing. This after defendant Modani’s Dec. 30 motion to dismiss Hindi’s FTSA claims on grounds that the statute is unconstitutional for restricting First Amendment speech (see 2301030038). Hindi’s filing of his first amended complaint prompted U.S. District Judge William Dimitrouleas for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale to sign an order Thursday denying the motion to dismiss as moot. Hours after the judge’s order, Hindi and Modani filed a joint notice of settlement with the court, asserting they were now “in the process of finalizing the terms of the settlement.” They asked the court to vacate all pending deadlines and to allow them 60 days to file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.
Averon’s unopposed motion for leave Thursday to file an amended trade secrets misappropriation complaint against AT&T appears to have negated Monday’s deadline for AT&T to answer the original Oct. 11 action (see 2210120040). AT&T is alleged to have courted Averon as a business partner for its passwordless authentication technology, only to use that technology to form the ZenKey joint venture with T-Mobile and Verizon. The amended complaint names “AT&T Corp.” and “AT&T Services” as the “proper” AT&T parties and drops “AT&T Inc.” without prejudice, said Averon’s motion (docket 1:22-cv-01341) in U.S. District Court for Delaware. It also provides “additional clarity” on the Averon trade secrets at issue in the dispute. Averon filed the proposed amended complaint under seal, and the public version is heavily redacted. The amended complaint “involves a Fortune 15 corporation that misappropriated proprietary software technology from a start-up company under the guise of collaboration, and then used its size advantage and monopoly power to drive the start-up out of business by poaching its existing and potential customers and locking it out of the marketplace,” it said. AT&T previously denied any wrongdoing, calling Averon’s lawsuit a publicity stunt (see 2210130012).
U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley for Northern California in San Francisco scheduled a further case management conference Feb. 23 on the surviving portions of the June 10 second amended complaint brought against Qualcomm by four California consumers. The original litigation dates back six years to when the FTC and a group of consumers brought similar, parallel actions alleging Qualcomm uses its position at the confluence between chip manufacturing and patent licensing to stifle competition.
Amazon, Best Buy, Target, Walmart and others are unlawfully selling unlicensed DVD and Blu-ray copies online of the 1981 film Just Before Dawn, alleged independent film company Redoak Communications in a complaint Wednesday (docket 9:23-cv-80008) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in West Palm Beach.