The Biden administration will appeal a federal court ruling imposing a preliminary injunction on certain departments and agencies to limit their communication with social media platforms, said plaintiffs’ notice of appeal (docket 3:22-cv-01213) to the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Wednesday in U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana in Monroe. U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty granted Louisiana AG Jeff Landry (R) and Missouri AG Andrew Bailey’s (R) request for a preliminary injunction against most of the nearly 70 federal government defendants in Missouri v. Biden (see 2307050042). The freedom of speech class action alleges the Biden administration coerced and collaborated with social media companies to control public narrative about COVID-19 vaccine and mask mandates and results from the 2020 election. Under the injunction, most of the defendants are "enjoined and restrained" from 10 forms of interactions with social media companies. Top of the list is the requirement that they're not to meet with the companies "for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms," said the ruling. Expressly "not prohibited" by the injunction are eight forms of interactions involving criminal activity, national security or voter misinformation, Doughty’s order said. One guideline expressly doesn't bar the government defendants from contacting social media companies for the purpose of "exercising permissible public government speech promoting government policies or views on matters of public concern." DOJ expects to request a stay of the district court's decision "expeditiously.”
The plaintiffs in the putative social media class action in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles (see 2301030036) contend the “landmark” preliminary injunction granted July 4 against federal officials by U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty for Western Louisiana in Monroe (see 2307050042) is “directly related to adjudicating” the viewpoint discrimination claims asserted in their own case, said their notice Wednesday (docket 2:22-cv-09438). Doughty’s injunction bars the federal officials from engaging in 10 forms of interactions with social media companies. DOJ filed notice Wednesday that it will appeal Doughty's injunction to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (see 2307050067). DOJ expects to expeditiously seek a stay of Doughty's ruling, said an official. Plaintiffs Richard Jackson, Julie Briggs and Gregg Buchwalter in the Los Angeles class action allege the Democratic National Committee and the Biden administration colluded to suppress and censor disfavored speakers, viewpoints and content on social media platforms.
Parties in Missouri v. Biden and non-movants in the similar Kennedy v. Biden First Amendment class action may respond by July 19 to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s motion to consolidate his and Children’s Health Defense’s freedom of speech lawsuit, said a Wednesday minute entry (docket 3:23-cv-00381) signed by U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty for Western Louisiana in Monroe. Movants may respond by July 26. Kennedy, a Democratic candidate for president in 2024, moved in April for consolidation of the cases, describing the defendants and facts as “substantially identical (see 2304050007)". The Missouri and Louisiana class action alleges the Biden administration coerced and collaborated with social media companies to control public narrative about COVID-19 vaccine and mask mandates and results from the 2020 election. Kennedy and his Children’s Health Defense organization, “unlike in Missouri v. Biden, do not rest their claims on censorship of their own speech,” Kennedy said: “Rather, Plaintiffs have brought this case as (and on behalf of) social media users, whose right to an uncensored public square is being systematically violated.” Biden administration defendants “misunderstand this case,” said Kennedy in a Tuesday reply memorandum in support of Louisiana AG Jeff Landry (R) and Missouri AG Andrew Bailey’s (R) request for a preliminary injunction against most of the nearly 70 federal government defendants. "Plaintiffs need only show -- and the evidence before the Court clearly establishes -- that Defendants are deliberately 'induc[ing], encourage[ing], or promot[ing]' social media censorship of protected speech," Kennedy said, citing Norwood v. Harrison. If there's "'any fixed star in our constitutional constellation,' as the Supreme Court reaffirmed just days ago, 'it is the principle that the government may not interfere with an uninhibited marketplace of ideas,'” he said, referencing Creative v. Elenis. Doughty granted a preliminary injunction Tuesday to the AGs (see 2307050042) ordering certain departments and agencies to limit their communication with social media platforms; DOJ filed a notice of appeal Wednesday (see note, this issue).
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled in-person oral argument Sept. 14 at 9 a.m. PDT in Verizon’s appeal of the district court decision denying its motion to compel the dispute of 27 California consumers to arbitration (see 2303190001), said a text-only notice Friday (docket 22-16020). Though the case is scheduled for oral argument, the panel may decide to submit the case on the briefs instead, said the notice. Attorneys have the option to appear in person at the courthouse or remotely by video, it said. Opting to appear remotely by video won’t require a motion, it said: “The court expects and supports the fact that some attorneys and some judges will continue to appear remotely.”
Amazon and its former third-party seller Jiakeshu Technology agreed on a proposed briefing schedule on Jiakeshu’s petition to vacate an arbitration award in Amazon’s favor, Amazon counsel John Magliery of Davis Wright wrote U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams for Southern New York in Manhattan in a letter Friday (docket 1:22-cv-10119). An arbitrator ruled last summer that Amazon could keep $50,000 in Jiakeshu sales proceeds that Amazon seized after it deactivated the third-party store for paying customers to submit fake positive reviews, and Abrams on June 21 denied Jiakeshu’s motion to remand to New York Supreme Court its petition to vacate that award (see 2306220019). Under the proposed schedule, Amazon’s memorandum of law in opposition to the vacatur petition and in support of its cross-motion to confirm that award would be due July 17. Jiakeshu’s reply memorandum of law in support of its vacatur petition and in opposition to Amazon’s cross-motion to confirm would be due July 31, and Amazon’s reply in support of the cross-motion to confirm Aug. 14.
The FAA denied allegations brought by environmental groups that it should have done more study of the likely environmental effects of SpaceX launches on a section of rural Texas (see 2305010055). The FAA's answer filed Friday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (docket 23-cv-01204) contained no affirmative defenses, just denials of the plaintiffs' allegations. In a proposed answer, SpaceX as a proposed intervenor-defendant also point by point denied the allegations.
Two recent Southern District of New York decisions support Amazon’s opposition to the motion of third-party seller Shenzhen Zongheng Domain Network to remand its arbitration vacatur petition to state court (see 2306280002), said Amazon’s notice of supplemental authority Thursday (docket 1:23-cv-03334) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan. Amazon deactivated Zongheng’s account and seized its $507,619 in sales proceeds for allegedly manipulating customer product reviews. An arbitrator ruled in January that Amazon was entitled to keep the money, and Zongheng's petition seeks to vacate that ruling. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon entered a decision and order May 23 denying a motion for remand in the case of U.S. Rising Star v. Amazon (docket 1:23-cv-00778), said the notice. The petitioner in that action is represented by the same counsel as Zongheng and raised “substantially identical arguments” about the court’s exercise of “diversity jurisdiction over that petitioner’s vacatur action,” it said. Then on June 21, U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams entered a memorandum opinion and order in the case of Jiakeshu Technology v. Amazon, denying that petitioner’s motion to remand (see 2306220019), it said. As in Rising Star, the petitioner in Jiakeshu is also represented by the same counsel as Zongheng and raised substantially identical arguments about the court’s exercise of federal question jurisdiction under the New York Convention, it said.
The final June 26 decision at the California Court of Appeals in Jack v. Ring is “relevant” to the 27 consumer plaintiff-appellees trying to defend against Verizon’s bid to reverse a lower court’s denial of its motion to compel their claims to arbitration, said the appellees’ citation of supplemental authorities Wednesday (docket 22-16020) at the 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court. The appellees previously asserted every court that has ruled on the enforceability of the Verizon arbitration clause said the agreement doesn’t clearly delegate arbitrability issues to the arbitrator (see 2305300039). In their citation, the appellees said they contend “the incorporation by reference of arbitral society rules does not clearly and unmistakably delegate questions of arbitrability, particularly when, as here, a party is unsophisticated.” Jack notes the clear and unmistakable delegation standard is higher than the evidentiary standard applicable to other matters of interpreting an arbitration agreement, said the citation. Consequently, it said, the fact that Verizon “can employ traditional rules of construction to envision hypotheticals in which the American Arbitration Association and Better Business Bureau rules might theoretically be harmonizable” doesn’t establish “a clear and unmistakable delegation,” it said.
U.S. District Judge John Koeltl for Southern New York in Manhattan gave Amazon until July 14 to respond to the motion from third-party seller Longyan Junkai Information Technology to remand its petition to vacate an arbitration award in Amazon’s favor to New York County Supreme Court, said the judge’s signed memo endorsement Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-04869). Longyan’s reply is due July 24, it said. Longyan seeks the recovery of $461,000 in sales proceeds that Amazon seized when it deactivated the seller’s online store on allegations it carried counterfeit goods (see 2306270041).
Plaintiff Israel Mertz and defendant Verizon agree Mertz’s Fair Credit Reporting Act claims against Verizon should be dismissed without prejudice because the claims will proceed to “contractual arbitration,” said their stipulation Tuesday (docket 7:22-cv-10938) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in White Plains. Mertz alleged inaccurate and misleading information provided by Verizon led to erroneous debt collection actions (see 2212300022). Mertz previously dismissed his FCRA claims against Equifax, but his claims against TransUnion remain pending.