Sukhdev Dhillon “unlawfully appropriated” the Radio Punjab mark and told radio listeners and advertisers in California and Washington he was operating “the ‘real’ Radio Punjab,” creating “confusion in the radio marketplace,” alleged a trademark infringement complaint Friday (docket 1:24-at-00017) in U.S. District Court for Eastern California in Fresno.
Even in “hard cases,” courts must exercise independent judgment and determine the “original public meaning” of federal statutes “based on their best understanding of statutory text, structure, history, purpose, and precedent,” but Chevron “flouts these principles,” said the petitioners’ U.S. Supreme Court reply brief Friday (docket 22-1219) in Relentless v. Commerce Department in support of overruling Chevron.
A weather-tracking company copied and displayed protected video footage of a tornado hitting Elgin, Texas, in violation of copyright law, alleged a complaint Thursday (docket 6:24-cv-06014) in U.S. District Court for Western New York in Rochester.
The court should reject the first-to-file rule in a privacy case about a September data breach involving a cyberattack on MGM International’s computer systems, said MGM Resorts International’s brief Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-20419) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Camden. It opposes the plaintiffs’ November emergency motion to preclude all other venues and duplicate litigation. U.S. District Judge Joseph Rodriguez for New Jersey reset deadlines in December for the motion, originally set for Tuesday, to Jan. 16 (see 2312120066). The court should deny Saul and Shirley Lassoff’s first-to-file motion, said MGM, calling it a “baseless attempt to seize control of 13 other putative nationwide class actions pending in the District of Nevada," each alleging similar negligence, breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against MGM arising from the data breach. The first-to-file rule aims to limit duplicate litigation, “not to incentivize first filers,” said the brief. The rule is “inapposite” where it will neither preserve judicial resources nor enhance “the just and efficient management of the litigation,” it said. The cases against MGM in the District of Nevada “are at least as mature,” if not more so, than the Lassoffs’ case, it said. MGM intends to transfer the Lassoffs’ action to Nevada because the federal court in Las Vegas “provides a more convenient forum in which to efficiently coordinate between and manage multiple pending cases with multiple plaintiffs and counsel of record,” the brief said. Given the location of many witnesses and documents in Nevada, “as well as the total lack of any such evidence in New Jersey,” the convenience offered by trial in Nevada “is sufficient to overcome the first-to-file rule,” it said, citing Ricoh v. Honeywell. All the cases vs. MGM “are in their infancy,” and MGM is of the belief that multiple interested parties in Nevada are working to coordinate the litigation and address the issues that inspire the first-to-file rule, said the brief. “Were those efforts interrupted by an injunction -- particularly without any evidence that these Plaintiffs provided proper notice to the plaintiffs in other actions -- it would undoubtedly lead to ancillary litigation and delay,” it said.
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.
Plaintiff-appellee John Doe's counsel in the privacy appeal brought by Cedars-Sinai Health System (see 2305260047) on Thursday submitted to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as supplemental authority the 8th Circuit’s decision in John Doe v. BJC Health System (docket 23-1107). Cedars-Sinai’s appeal seeks to reverse the district court’s order remanding the case to state court where it originated. BJC Health System, like Byrd’s case before the 9th Circuit, “involves a defendant’s improper removal of a case based upon the federal officer removal statute,” said counsel Rachele Byrd of Wolf Haldenstein in her letter Friday (docket 23-55466) to the 9th Circuit clerk. The plaintiffs in BJC Health System allege that when they visited BJC’s online patient portal to access electronic health records, BJC shared their protected health information with third-party marketing services in violation of state privacy laws, it said. The 8th Circuit, “in a comprehensive and carefully reasoned opinion,” affirmed the district court’s order remanding the action back to state court, said the letter. The 8th Circuit held that a party acts under a federal officer, within the meaning of the federal officer removal statute, only when it performs a basic governmental task, it said. That task involves a delegation of legal authority from a federal entity, it said. In other words, the party acts on the government’s behalf, and does the business of the federal government and not merely its own, it said. The 8th Circuit held that the design of private websites is not, and has never been, a basic governmental task, said the letter. When BJC created and operated an online portal for its patients, it wasn’t doing the federal government’s business but rather its own, it said. That BJC received a federal subsidy when it created its private website is an “insufficient” basis for removing a case under the federal officer removal statute, it said.
The district court’s decision in the copyright infringement case against Internet Archive “puts copyright law at odds with the Constitution,” said the Copia Institute’s Dec. 22 amicus brief (23-1260) in support of IA's appeal before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Appeals Court.