An Apple customer sued the company to retrieve 20 years’ worth of private and personal data after losing all access to his AppleID due to “a series of unfortunate events,” according to the customer's complaint Friday (docket 24-cv-433194) in Santa Clara County Superior Court.
Tensions appear close to boiling over in plaintiff Dennis Gromov’s false advertising case against defendant Belkin International if Thursday’s joint status report (docket 1:22-cv-06918) is any indication. Gromov’s class action alleges that Belkin advertised power banks for mobile devices in a deceptive manner, and that the chargers don’t deliver nearly the amount of power promised in those ads (see 2301300008). U.S. District Judge Franklin Valderrama granted Gromov’s motion Feb. 28 to compel Belkin’s discovery responses, but Belkin now says it needs 45 days more, until April 30, to respond to the order, said Gromov’s position statement in the status report. Belkin insists it needs the extra time “to locate and produce information that Belkin should have been maintaining on a litigation hold for years,” said Gromov's position statement. Belkin says it has discussed with Gromov the information that will be presented in rolling tranches, but that’s “not the case,” it said. Belkin’s rolling productions in the past “have come in one single dump in the nighttime hours of the last possible day,” it said. Absent any actual detail, Belkin’s time frame for compliance “should be shortened considerably because these discovery requests are coming up on their first anniversary,” it said. The court should ensure that Gromov “has at least a few weeks to review all of the discovery and take the depositions of at least the three Belkin witnesses Gromov has been seeking,” plus those of any new persons who may appear in the documents or interrogatories, it said. Belkin’s position statement said the company is “dismayed” that Gromov’s counsel “has used this status report as an opportunity to make unsupported incendiary accusations that neither reflect the true status of discovery, nor help to advance that process.” Belkin initially presented Gromov’s counsel with a “simple and straightforward” report that would inform the court of the current status of discovery and proposed a schedule for necessary modifications to the scheduling order, as the parties were ordered to do, it said. Belkin “would have much rather filed that type of document,” noting any objections as to the proposed schedule for the court to resolve, it said. But amid “the many misrepresentations made” by Gromov’s counsel in its portions of the joint report, Belkin “is compelled to briefly respond,” it said. Contrary to those misrepresentations, Belkin “has been diligently working to collect and produce the responsive information required” by the court’s Feb. 28 order, it said. That order significantly expanded the scope of the “representative sample” at issue from a proposed 36 devices to 113, it said. In light of that tripling of the scope of the representative sampling discovery, Belkin “intends to make a rolling production of documents and expects to be able to complete its production, and to supplement any interrogatory responses as appropriate, within 45 days,” it said. To the extent that sufficient physical copies of power bank devices within the representative sample can be located in response to Gromov’s first request for production, Belkin “will make such physical devices available for inspection and non-destructive testing, subject to the parties’ agreement on an appropriate protocol,” it said. “Unsatisfied with that proposal” for reasons that aren’t clear, Gromov’s counsel demands that Belkin “complete its production of documents to multiple requests for production as to 113 products and communications about those products and supplement multiple interrogatory responses about those products within the next two weeks,” it said: “This demand is not reasonable.”
U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp for New Jersey in Trenton denied without prejudice SiriusXM’s motion to compel plaintiff Robyn Posternock’s fraud claims to arbitration, said his signed order Thursday (docket 3:23-cv-02680). In reviewing the Rule 56(d) declaration submitted by Posternock's counsel, the court finds that Posternock “has adequately demonstrated that limited discovery is warranted” before a decision is made on SiriusXM’s motion to compel, said the order. The parties are to engage in limited discovery on the issue of arbitrability, to be completed by May 31, it said. The parties are to submit a joint proposed scheduling order by March 29 on the limited issue of arbitrability, it said. After that limited discovery is complete, SiriusXM will be permitted to file a “renewed” motion to compel arbitration, which the court will assess “under a Rule 56 summary judgment standard,” said the order. Posternock's class action is one of several to allege that SiriusXM falsely advertises its music plans at lower prices than it actually charges (see 2308210017).
Insurance firm Keenan & Associates discovered a data breach in its computer systems on Aug. 27, but waited six months before it notified and warned customers that their personally identifiable information (PII) was vulnerable, alleged a negligence class action Thursday (docket 8:24-cv-00544) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana.
Two Cyprus-based entities, Restoro and Reimage, operating as a “common enterprise,” agreed to pay the FTC $26 million to resolve allegations they ran a phony computer tech support scheme since January 2018 that bilked tens of millions of dollars from consumers, in violation of the FTC Act and the commission’s Telemarketing Sales Rule, said their proposed stipulated order Thursday (docket 1:24-cv-00735) in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Defendants Abdoulaye Niang, Alexander Niang, Mewza LLC, Abarika LLC and Henan Fanding Network Technology fraudulently claim they are original creators of the Rainbow Friends video game characters “Purple” and “Green,” alleged a trademark infringement suit Wednesday (docket 1:24-cv-01913) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan.
Optical store chain Eyemart Express tracks users’ activity on its website without their consent and without disclosing the tracking practices, alleged a class action Wednesday (docket 3:24-cv-00621) in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas.
Plaintiff Greg Bostard and defendant Verizon agree on a March 19 deadline for Bostard’s filing of a second amended complaint “solely for the purpose of adding an additional plaintiff and the specific allegations identifying that new plaintiff,” said their proposed briefing schedule Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-08564) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Newark. April 18 is the parties’ proposed deadline for Verizon’s filing of a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, it said. Bostard is a former Comcast utility pole worker who wants Verizon to pay for his medical monitoring due to his 29 years of exposure to Verizon’s toxic lead cables (see 2308240005). His first amended complaint Jan. 12 asserted that he’s not seeking personal injury damages but rather relief for the “present economic injury” he suffers by having to pay for his own lead-poisoning tests (see 2401160001).
Amazon is seeking to relate another case involving Amazon Prime Video fees to In Re: Amazon Service Fee Litigation, a consolidated action involving Whole Foods delivery fees under the Prime membership program, said its notice of related case Tuesday (docket 2:22-cv-00743) in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle. The consolidated case, in which plaintiff Dena Griffith is suing Amazon for removing free Whole Foods grocery delivery from her Prime membership benefit, and Natalie Gianne et al v. Amazon.com, Inc. (docket 2:24-cv-00309) -- in which plaintiffs allege they were harmed by a monthly fee introduced to receive Amazon Prime Video without ads -- both arise from Amazon’s changes to benefits under Prime, said the notice. The cases bring claims under consumer protection statutes, “based on Amazon’s allegedly false or misleading promises regarding the Prime service and alleged breach of contractual obligations," and the proposed classes “overlap with the proposed class in the Gianne case,” it said. Both cases are filed against the same defendant, arise from substantially similar allegations, require determinations of substantially similar questions of fact and law, and are likely to entail substantial duplication of effort for the judges assigned to each case, it said.
Amazon’s motion to consolidate service fee cases involves different Amazon services, different service changes “made over years apart,” different putative class members and different key contractual terms, said plaintiff Wilbert Napoleon’s opposition Monday (docket 2:22-cv-00743) in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle. Amazon already tried to relate Napoleon v. Amazon (docket 2:24-cv-00186) to In Re: Amazon Service Fee Litigation and U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein for Western Washington “was not persuaded,” said the opposition. Napoleon filed his case Feb. 9, and the next week, Amazon filed a notice of relation, attempting to persuade Rothstein to relate the case to Amazon Service Fee, it said. Napoleon filed a response explaining why the cases weren’t related, and Rothstein didn’t relate them, instead entering a scheduling order and setting case deadlines, it said. Amazon then filed its motion to consolidate, “but consolidation should not be an end-run around relation,” said the opposition. Amazon doesn’t meet the consolidation standard, it said, saying that in deciding whether to consolidate, courts look to “the existence of common questions of law or fact and weigh the interests of judicial economy against any delay or prejudice that might result.” Amazon "is huge; it may get accused of violating similar laws many times a year, in many different ways, and not all of these actions can or should be consolidated,” said the opposition, citing Daly v. Amazon.com. “This is because judges do not decide cases based on superficial similarities, like the fact that both cases assert consumer protection claims against Amazon subscriptions,” said the filing. Instead, judges decide cases “based on the granular operative facts and specific legal issues,” which in this case, don’t justify consolidation, it said. Napoleon’s complaint alleged Amazon “changed the deal” on its Prime Video offering by charging consumers an additional $2.99 a month for ad-free streaming (see 2402120001). Amazon Service Fee is about Amazon’s grocery delivery service, through Whole Foods.