The court shouldn't grant Zuania Vazquez-Padilla’s motion to stay discovery in a fraud complaint over Facebook content moderation, said defendant Cognizant Technology Solutions’ opposition (docket 8:23-cv-02607) Thursday in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa. Discovery in Vazquez-Padilla’s case would unfairly prolong stays of discovery in two other matters that are “tangentially-related arbitrations,” it said. The plaintiff noted in her motion that the arbitrators stayed discovery until discovery proceeds in her case and argued that staying discovery in her case would “'delay discovery’" in the arbitrations and prevent those victims from “obtaining timely justice,” said the filing. Vazquez-Padilla’s response suggests that Cognizant and the court’s prior stays “are to blame for the arbitration plaintiffs’ inability to obtain 'timely justice,'” said the opposition. That argument “cannot be farther from the truth,” it said, saying discovery originally proceeded in the arbitrations as a matter of course until Vazquez-Padilla’s counsel “intentionally violated protective orders the arbitrators had entered by using confidential discovery material” from arbitrations in Aguilo et al. v. Cognizant Technology Solutions, it said. Discovery is stayed in the arbitrations because of Vazquez-Padilla’s counsel’s “intentional misconduct,” and the parties’ subsequent agreement to continue the stays, it said. “If anything,” said the opposition, plaintiff’s counsel’s “attempt to take advantage of his intentional discovery violations (again) to avoid a stay is yet another reason a discovery stay is particularly warranted here.” Vazquez-Padilla worked as a content moderator for Cognizant, which previously provided that service for Facebook. Its content moderators reviewed postings on Facebook to determine whether they violated the social media platform’s terms of use. Vazquez-Padilla claims reviewing graphic content caused her to develop psychological injuries.
A former Comcast utility pole worker's second amended complaint “suffers from the same deficiencies” as his original complaint and his first amended complaint, said Verizon’s motion to dismiss Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-08564) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Camden. The former worker, Greg Bostard, seeks to force Verizon to pay for his medical monitoring after years of exposure to Verizon’s toxic lead cables.
U.S. District Judge Gary Klausner for Central California in Los Angeles denied the motion to remand of a Jane Doe plaintiff who sued PHE, owner of adult products website Adam & Eve, for privacy violations, said his order (docket 2:24-cv-01065) Monday. Doe filed a class action complaint against PHE Jan. 3, alleging that after she used the Adam & Eve website, the company disclosed her personal sexual information and IP address to Google via Google Analytics without her consent. Doe originally filed the action against PHE in Central California district court Sept. 25. The case was dismissed and Doe then added Google to the lawsuit and filed in state court; Google removed the case to district court in February (see 2403110004). The defendants argued that Doe didn’t meet the local controversy exception's three requirements for a district court to decline federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA): that two-thirds of the putative class are California citizens; that the principal injuries from the alleged conduct were incurred in California; and that no similar class actions have been filed vs. the defendant in the past three years. The court disagreed with Doe’s contention that the class was comprised solely of California residents. On the injuries question, Doe failed to convince the court to depart from the “numerous California district courts which have routinely held that artificially restricting a nationwide injury to appear purely Californian in nature does not warrant remand”; therefore, the principal injuries requirement wasn't met, said the order. In a separate order, Klausner dismissed Doe’s complaint, saying she can refile within seven days of the order “with her true legal name.” In response to the court’s order to show cause for proceeding by pseudonym, Doe argued that she would otherwise be forced to publicly reveal her purchase history, which would reveal her sexual practices, preferences and orientation, which could lead to public ridicule and social stigmatization, said the order. Doe’s purchase history may subject her to “severe ridicule and stigma so as to outweigh public interest,” but that harm can be avoided “simply by obtaining a protective order and filing that information under seal,” the order said.
Sheila and Dennis Thompson were correct to ask U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark for Eastern Missouri to remand count II of their first amended Telephone Consumer Protection Act complaint against Vintage Stock to St. Louis County Circuit Court where it originated before the home entertainment retailer removed it in January 2023, said Clark’s memorandum and order Tuesday (docket 4:23-cv-00042).
Communications Litigation Today is tracking the below lawsuits involving appeals of FCC actions. Cases marked with an * were terminated since the last update. Cases in bold are new since the last update.
Ford objects to the “improper” plaintiffs’ motion for an advisory opinion for leave to amend their 3G telematics class action complaint and for an “indicative ruling” under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 62.1.1, said the automaker’s opposition Wednesday (docket 3:22-cv-01716) in U.S. District Court for Southern California in San Diego. The four plaintiffs allege that the 3G modems on Ford vehicles they bought or leased were rendered inoperable, as were the roadside assistance features that depended on those modems, after AT&T’s 3G phaseout in 2022. They allege the carmaker knew as early as 2019 that AT&T’s phaseout of the 3G network was inevitable and yet continued to manufacture vehicles with 3G modems. U.S. District Judge Michael Anello denied Ford’s motion to compel the plaintiffs’ claims to arbitration, and Ford is appealing that denial to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (see 2312040038). Ford’s Dec. 1 notice of appeal “divested the trial court of jurisdiction and automatically stayed further district court proceedings,” said its opposition. Despite that automatic stay, the plaintiffs seek to “circumvent resolution” of Ford’s appeal on the merits “by omitting their allegations that Ford’s authorized dealerships are agents of Ford,” it said. Such an amendment would be “futile,” it said. Principles of estoppel “would still permit consideration of the original as pleaded claims that were considered,” it said. Even if that weren’t the case, and even if the plaintiffs removed the allegation, “their causes of action require that some underlying agency relationship exist between Ford and its authorized dealerships,” it said. The plaintiffs’ claims for fraudulent omission, violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act and for breach of implied warranty “all require some underlying relationship” between Ford, the plaintiffs and the sales transaction with the authorized dealerships, it said. Ford’s appeal is based on the arguments made in its motion to compel arbitration, said its opposition. The carmaker argues that it may enforce the arbitration provisions as the alleged principal of the dealerships that countersigned the sales and lease contracts, it said. Ford also argues it may enforce the arbitration provisions as a third-party beneficiary of the lease contracts, and that it may enforce the arbitration provisions based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel, it said. The plaintiffs’ removal of agency allegations wouldn’t “moot the issues on appeal,” it said. Ford will meet and confer with the plaintiffs “so as to obviate the need to file a formal motion to enforce the appellate stay,” it said.
A week before Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman were to stand trial before a jury on damages for their roles in the robocall campaign to suppress Black citizens' mail-in votes in the run-up to the 2020 election (see 2312040022), they and the 10 plaintiffs in the case against them, including New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), proposed a consent decree Monday (docket 1:20-cv-08668) that would avert that trial.
Communications Litigation Today is tracking the below lawsuits involving appeals of FCC actions. Cases marked with an * were terminated since the last update. Cases in bold are new since the last update.
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) is moving with apparent speed to corral the growing volume of AT&T data breach class actions into a single, centralized proceeding.
Disability law “must be considered” when determining whether standards incorporated by reference into federal regulations are reasonably available as the Administrative Procedure Act requires, said the American Foundation for the Blind and Prime Access Consulting, which promotes accessible websites and web content, in an amicus brief Wednesday (docket 23-1311) at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.