Amazon breached its duty to a confidential settlement agreement it reached with photographer Barry Rosen regarding future copyright infringement, alleged Rosen's copyright complaint Monday (docket 2:24-cv-00771) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. The settlement agreement outlined Rosen’s and Amazon’s responsibilities in “Specialized Notice and Takedown Procedure Prior to Filing Suit,” said the complaint. Rosen followed the procedure “to the best of his ability,” but Amazon failed to abide by its responsibilities, it said. The Los Angeles resident has never licensed Amazon to use his photographs for any purpose, nor has he granted any entity or individual rights to sell physical or digital copies of the photographs in question on Amazon websites, it said. Amazon “intentionally allowed, provided material assistance, or otherwise induced sellers” to post infringing copies of Rosen's copyrighted works on its e-commerce platform to “advertise, market and promote business activities, and/or to sell infringing products predominantly consisting of posters for profit,” the complaint said. Though Rosen notified Amazon of the infringing activities of its users through a series of Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices, Amazon “failed to remove infringements” from its websites or servers and failed to terminate users, where appropriate, “despite red-flag knowledge of repeated or ongoing infringing activities,” it said. Among the seller accounts using Rosen’s photographs were JP The Brick, FC Carino, Warm Keepers, Posh LJ, Shine On and Geary Stop, the complaint said. Many of the accounts were “repeat infringers” with “dozens of infringements.” Amazon “failed to terminate the user accounts or to maintain a proper DMCA termination policy,” it said. Amazon should have had reason to know that the sellers of infringing posters reported by Rosen were “fake accounts and/or directly related to two separate identifiable infringers located in California who are likely either all the same people or are otherwise working together,” it said.
LoanDepot has made little information available regarding the data breach it announced in a Jan. 8 SEC filing, said a complaint Monday (docket 8:24-cv-00194) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana.
AT&T contractor Deviney Construction “vehemently” denies allegations it damaged an underground electrical conduit while excavating near a commercial retail building that Loboda Properties owns in Natchitoches, Louisiana (see 2401080004), said Deviney’s answer Friday (docket 1:24-cv-00022) in U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana in Alexandria. Insurer Travelers Property Casualty Co. made the claim on behalf of Loboda, its client. The damages weren’t caused by Deviney’s “acts or omissions,” said the answer. Devoney “at all times” complied with the Louisiana Underground Utilities and Facilities Damage Prevention Law and relied “on the markings set forth by the utility companies operating utility lines in the subject area,” it said. Any injuries or damages the plaintiff sustained “were caused by intervening or superseding events, factors, occurrences, or conditions” that Deviney didn’t cause and for which it isn’t liable, it said. If it’s determined that the plaintiff indeed suffered damages, Deviney asserts that the plaintiff “failed to mitigate" its alleged damages or failed "to take reasonable steps to minimize or prevent the damages purportedly sustained in the subject incident as is required by law,” said the answer. In the “further alternative,” Deviney avers that if the plaintiff suffered any injuries, which are denied, those injuries were caused by the “acts, carelessness, inattention to duty, omissions, and/or conduct of third persons" for whose fault and/or negligence Deviney isn’t liable, it said.
Four plaintiffs pounced last week on news of a data breach that mortgage lender loanDepot announced this month, filing negligence class actions in U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana over the breach that exposed the personally identifiable information (PII) of 16.6 million customers.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals docketed Donald Nicodemus' appeal against the state of Indiana and the city of South Bend as case number 24-1099, said the court’s docketing notice Tuesday. Nicodemus is challenging the district court’s denial of his request for a permanent injunction that would have blocked Indiana from enforcing HB-1186, the state’s “buffer law” (see 2401160011). HB-1186, which took effect July 1, makes it a misdemeanor to approach within 25 feet of police officers on active duty. Nicodemus periodically livestreams police encounters on his YouTube channel. On July 20, South Bend police moved him back from a shooting investigation in town, referencing HB-1186 while he continued to film. Nicodemus argues that HB-1186 violates the First Amendment because it is “facially overbroad.”
T-Mobile’s contract for the purchase of mobile phones from Unimax authorized it to cancel purchase orders (POs) before receipt of the phones “without incurring any liability,” said the defendant’s motion to dismiss (docket 2:23-cv-01830) Unimax's breach of contract suit in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle.
Plaintiff Donald Nicodemus is appealing the Jan. 12 decision of U.S. District Judge Damon Leichty for Northern Indiana in South Bend denying Nicodemus’ motion for a permanent injunction that would have blocked Indiana from enforcing HB-1186, the state’s “buffer law” (see 2401160011), said his notice of appeal Monday (docket 3:23-cv-00744). HB-1186, which took effect July 1, makes it a misdemeanor to approach within 25 feet of police officers on active duty. Nicodemus' case is one of at least two challenges to the law on First Amendment grounds (see [Ref:2312180005). Nicodemus periodically livestreams police encounters on his YouTube channel. He asserts that on July 20, South Bend police moved him back from a shooting investigation in town, referencing HB-1186 while he continued to film.
The U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa should dismiss with prejudice plaintiff Zuania Vazquez-Padilla’s fraud complaint that alleged Cognizant Technology should be held accountable for a “willfully misleading” job description, said Cognizant's motion to dismiss Monday (docket 8:23-cv-02607).
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar seeks leave to participate as an amicus in oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association in their challenges to the Florida and Texas social media content moderation laws, said Prelogar’s separate motions Monday (dockets 22-277 and 22-555).
Two plaintiffs’ lawsuit against T-Mobile in a SIM swap fraud case “belongs in arbitration,” said the defendant's memorandum of law Friday (docket 1:23-cv-06159) in U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in Brooklyn in support of its motion to compel arbitration and stay the case, pending the outcome of that arbitration.