sunspotter
13 minutes ago
The court will doubtless grant the Motion to Stay. Later they will sanction Inza, Leon, VPLM and their lawyers for this frivolous but malicious waste of everybody's time
"INTRODUCTION
All of Plaintiffs’ claims, whether asserted against Defendants AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon,
or their respective officers and directors, should be stayed, pending arbitration or otherwise.1
Plaintiffs Ray Leon, Richard Inza, and Michael Inza (collectively, “Individual Plaintiffs”) are all
subscribers of at least one carrier Defendant. They have agreed to Defendants’ terms of service
on dozens of occasions, including after filing their original complaint in this case in at least one
instance. Each Defendant’s terms contain unambiguous and mandatory arbitration agreements
that require Individual Plaintiffs to arbitrate all claims against their respective carriers on an
individual basis. Per the terms of those agreements and the facts of this case, the Federal
Arbitration Agreement (“FAA”) applies, and the Court should stay Individual Plaintiffs’ claims
pending arbitration.
Individual Plaintiffs are aware of their binding agreements. They simply opted to file this
action in direct contravention of those agreements. The Second Amended Complaint argues that
Defendants’ arbitration agreements are unenforceable, both because the customer agreements in
which they are contained were procured through fraud and because Individual Plaintiffs’ antitrust
and RICO claims are not arbitrable as a matter of policy. The former is meritless on its face and
not before the Court in any event, as Defendants’ arbitration agreements and Supreme Court
precedent make clear that challenges to the contract as a whole—rather than the arbitration
agreement specifically—are for the arbitrator. Similarly, despite Plaintiffs’ assertions to the
contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that antitrust and RICO claims are arbitrable.
As a matter of controlling law, Individual Plaintiffs must also arbitrate their claims
against the directors and officers (“Individual Defendants”) affiliated with their respective
wireless carriers.
Further, Individual Plaintiffs must arbitrate their claims against the Defendants with
whom they have no written agreement for two reasons. First, because the core of Individual
Plaintiffs’ allegations is that the Defendants have acted in concert to such a degree that they are
effectively one entity, the doctrine of equitable estoppel requires arbitration. Second, as to
Plaintiff Michael Inza’s claims, Defendant T-Mobile’s arbitration agreement extends to codefendants in the same action. Per the FAA, the Court should stay Individual Plaintiffs’ claims pending arbitration.
Likewise, the Court should stay Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com Inc.’s (“VoIP-Pal’s’”) claims in
light of the earlier standalone companion action VoIP-Pal filed in this Court, which asserts
identical claims against the same Defendants. VoIP-Pal has impermissibly split its claims, and
the Court should stay VoIP-Pal’s claims in this later-filed case to avoid injustice and waste of
judicial resources.
nyt
2 hours ago
Nothing more than just another of the many many monkey wrenches I've predicted and have manifested for yrs and yrs that never, I repeat, NEVER, amount to anything of substance. Reason being there is no substance. Vplm, in all its glory is nothing more than dryer fluff, pocket lint, the daily trash. One BIG DIVERSION from the DECEPTION it is, which is the big, mean green, fully upgraded, personal share printing, share selling machine with optional insider ATM.
GreenBackClub
3 hours ago
INZA et al v. AT&T INC. et al
District Of Columbia District Court
Judge: Randolph D Moss
Case #: 1:24-cv-03054
Nature of Suit 410 Other Statutes - Antitrust
Cause 15:1 Antitrust Litigation
Case Filed: Oct 25, 2024
Docket
Parties (58)
Docket last updated: 5 hours ago
Monday, June 23, 2025
70 motion Stay Mon 06/23 9:45 PM
MOTION to Stay Proceedings by MARCELO CLAURE, SRIKANT M. DATAR, SRINIVASAN GOPALAN, JAMES J. KAVANAUGH, LETITIA A. LONG, MARK NELSON, MIKE SIEVERT, T-MOBILE US, INC., TERESA A. TAYLOR, KELVIN R. WESTBROOK.(Gelfand, David)
Att: 1 Declaration of Paula Phillips in Support,
Att: 2 Exhibit A,
Att: 3 Exhibit B,
Att: 4 Exhibit C,
Att: 5 Exhibit D,
Att: 6 Exhibit E,
Att: 7 Exhibit F,
Att: 8 Exhibit G,
Att: 9 Declaration of Judy Sanchez in Support,
Att: 10 Exhibit 1,
Att: 11 Exhibit 2,
Att: 12 Exhibit 3,
Att: 13 Exhibit 4,
Att: 14 Exhibit 5,
Att: 15 Exhibit 6,
Att: 16 Exhibit 7,
Att: 17 Exhibit 8,
Att: 18 Exhibit 9,
Att: 19 Exhibit 10,
Att: 20 Exhibit 11,
Att: 21 Exhibit 12,
Att: 22 Exhibit 13,
Att: 23 Exhibit 14,
Att: 24 Exhibit 15,
Att: 25 Exhibit 16,
Att: 26 Declaration of Joseph Ninete in Support,
Att: 27 Exhibit A,
Att: 28 Exhibit B,
Att: 29 Exhibit C,
Att: 30 Exhibit D,
Att: 31 Exhibit E,
Att: 32 Exhibit F,
Att: 33 Exhibit G,
Att: 34 Exhibit H,
Att: 35 Exhibit I,
Att: 36 Exhibit J,
Att: 37 Text of Proposed Order
——
A court might grant a stay in an antitrust class action case for various reasons, often involving a balancing of interests to ensure fairness and judicial efficiency. One common reason is to avoid conflicting rulings with a related case, either within the same jurisdiction or in another court. Another reason could be to allow for the resolution of a dispositive motion, such as a motion to dismiss, before incurring the significant costs of discovery. Additionally, stays may be granted to allow for the resolution of related government investigations or enforcement actions
DeerBalls
20 hours ago
$.00645 Wow, and I just rewatched 'Boiler Room', the movie(great movie about a "bucket shop"), last night. Perfect timing!
So, you didn't buy, you were "sold"? I see. Well, not long before 2019, in 2017, VPLM hit $.45. I sold all I had @ about $.20, then reloaded far lower. Did you hold through that run? Did ya, huh, did ya? If so, it's on you!
Furthermore, I would love to see some proof of your bucket shop doing "hard-time" for selling VPLM. Geez, maybe the same bucket sold the story to Ray Leon? Maybe to Motley Fool, who has been in and out of VPLM, 3-4 times?
Last thing on this: I know I'm not dealing with the swiftest, when a person is constantly using "LOL...LMAO" and such for emphasis. Stock-talk, targets and VPLM really don't warrant "laughing out loud", unless maybe for someone that is nuts.
I will stick to that $.85 target, which hasn't been out there for "years"... Boy, look @ the volume? Sure, someone selling, but far more interesting to me is the buyer! OVER THE PAST MONTH, ABOUT $220K HAS CHANGED HANDS IN VPLM. I DON'T CONSIDER THE SELLER, BUT WHO MIGHT BE BUYING? Sellers sell for tons of reasons, BUYERS BUY FOR ONLY ONE!
Now, don't swallow your gum "LOL"...
straightword
Re: DeerBalls post# 136373 Monday, June 23, 2025 8:56:24 AM
Post#
136377
of 136379
Yeah, when I bought it long before 2019 and before the founders of the stock promotion firm that sold to me went to jail for fraud selling VPLM stock. What does that tell you? At least I'm not one that's been projecting a .85 price per share for years! LOL!! So VPLM "supposedly" has patents worth billions and billions ongoing with a price per share under .01 More continued confirmation what a farce the company is!
DeerBalls
2 days ago
$.00676 You have been wrong in the most IMPORTANT way: YOU BOUGHT @ $.14... I have never bought anywhere near $.14. You don't believe Emil/the VPLM story, BUT YOU BOUGHT!!!!??? What does that say?
My brother, who was a broker far ahead of me, used to say, "it's all in the buy; buy right and you're always good!".
straightword Thursday, January 03, 2019 1:10:05 PM
Post#
71561
of 136372
DeerBalls, the stock is not up 125% from two weeks ago. Prove it! Also, it's real easy to talk about how much the stock has gone up after it went from .14 when I bought it down to just over .01 Nice try but you are using select information to say this and are very misleading in doing so. Again, if there are as many billions upon billions of dollars at stake that you and Emil believe we will win judgments on at one point then why is this a .08 stock? Answer me that.
Spyke37
4 days ago
I must say, it seems like we are actually clawing our way into a courtroom to get this settled with facts and, hopefully, an unbiased referee. Speaking only for myself, this is what I have considered to be where we needed to go since I got involved in 2017.....when my daughter entered college.....she just graduated from Medical School......Until the reality of a real courtroom and major damages is staring the defendants in the face, along with the fact that VPLM has been on record for years insisting that they were willing to work out a fair arrangement, we will always get diversion and obfuscation. Sadly, that is a very effective strategy for an opponent with a bottomless pit of money and major political clout. I don't want to jinx this, because we have seemingly been close before, but this has a different feel. Good luck to us all.
GreenBackClub
4 days ago
INZA et al v. AT&T INC. et al
District Of Columbia District Court
Judge: Randolph D Moss
Case #: 1:24-cv-03054
Nature of Suit 410 Other Statutes - Antitrust
Cause 15:1 Antitrust Litigation
Case Filed: Oct 25, 2024
Docket
Parties (58)
Docket last updated: 6 hours ago
Thursday, June 19, 2025
order Order on Motion for Briefing Schedule Set/Reset Deadlines Thu 06/19 1:43 PM
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' Motion for Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule, Dkt.69 , it is hereby ORDERED that motion is GRANTED and the parties' proposed briefing schedule is adopted as follows: Defendants shall file any motion to stay this Action on or before June 23, 2025; Plaintiff's Response shall be filed on or before July 14, 2025; Defendants' replies shall be filed on or before July 28, 2025; Defendants' deadline to answer or move to dismiss the complaint shall be stayed until the Court rules on Defendants motion to stay. In the event that the Court denies any motion to stay in whole or in part, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss or other responses to the complaint (or the portion of it not stayed) shall be filed 30 days after the Court resolves the motion to stay. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 6/19/2025. (lcrdm1)
—-
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC v. AT&T INC. et al
District Of Columbia District Court
Judge: Randolph D Moss
Case #: 1:24-cv-03051
Nature of Suit 410 Other Statutes - Antitrust
Cause 15:1 Antitrust Litigation
Case Filed: Oct 25, 2024
Docket
Parties (54)
Docket last updated: 6 hours ago
Thursday, June 19, 2025
order Order on Motion for Briefing Schedule Set/Reset Deadlines Thu 06/19 1:39 PM
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' Motion for Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule, Dkt.69 , it is hereby ORDERED that motion is GRANTED and the parties' proposed briefing schedule is adopted as follows: Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint shall be filed on or before August 1, 2025; Plaintiff's responses to any motions to dismiss shall be filed on or before August 22, 2025; Defendants' replies shall be filed on or before September 12, 2025. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 6/19/2025. (lcrdm1)
GreenBackClub
5 days ago
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC v. APPLE INC. et al
District Of Columbia District Court
Judge: Randolph D Moss
Case #: 1:25-cv-01843
Nature of Suit 410 Other Statutes - Antitrust
Cause 28:1337 Sherman-Clayton Act
Case Filed: Jun 11, 2025
Docket
Parties (34)
Docket last updated: 6 hours ago
Wednesday, June 18, 2025
5 order .Order Wed 06/18 2:51 PM
STANDING ORDER: The parties are hereby ORDERED to comply with the directives set forth in the attached Standing Order. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 6/18/2025. (lcrdm1
—
In law, a standing order is a general, forward-looking court order that applies to all cases or certain types of cases before a court, or a specific set of rules that govern proceedings. It remains in effect until it's specifically changed or withdrawn.
GreenBackClub
5 days ago
INZA et al v. AT&T INC. et al
District Of Columbia District Court
Judge: Randolph D Moss
Case #: 1:24-cv-03054
Nature of Suit 410 Other Statutes - Antitrust
Cause 15:1 Antitrust Litigation
Case Filed: Oct 25, 2024
Docket
Parties (58)
Docket last updated: 6 hours ago
Wednesday, June 18, 2025
69 motion Briefing Schedule Wed 06/18 6:38 PM
Joint MOTION for Briefing Schedule by SHELLYE L ARCHAMBEAU, ROXANNE S. AUSTIN, MARK T. BERTOLIN, CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, VITTORIO COLAO, MELANIE L. HEALEY, LAXMAN NARASIMHAN, CLARENCE OTIS, JR, DANIEL H. SCHULMAN, RODNEY E. SLATER, CAROL B. TOME, VANDANA VENKATESH, VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES, INC., VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., VERIZON SERVICES CORP., HANS VESTBERG, GREGORY G. WEAVER.(Gerking, Megan)
Att: 1 Text of Proposed Order
—-
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC v. AT&T INC. et al
District Of Columbia District Court
Judge: Randolph D Moss
Case #: 1:24-cv-03051
Nature of Suit 410 Other Statutes - Antitrust
Cause 15:1 Antitrust Litigation
Case Filed: Oct 25, 2024
Docket
Parties (54)
Docket last updated: 6 hours ago
Wednesday, June 18, 2025
69 motion Briefing Schedule Wed 06/18 6:42 PM
Joint MOTION for Briefing Schedule by SHELLYE L ARCHAMBEAU, ROXANNE S. AUSTIN, MARK T. BERTOLIN, CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, VITTORIO COLAO, MELANIE L. HEALEY, LAXMAN NARASIMHAN, CLARENCE OTIS, JR, DANIEL H. SCHULMAN, RODNEY E. SLATER, CAROL B. TOME, VANDANA VENKATESH, VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES, INC., VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., VERIZON SERVICES CORP., HANS VESTBERG, GREGORY G. WEAVER.(Gerking, Megan)
Att: 1 Text of Proposed Order
—-
A briefing schedule is a document that outlines the deadlines for submitting legal briefs in a case, particularly in appellate courts. It typically includes the date, time, and location for filing briefs and sometimes specifies the timing for related actions like oral arguments