The Computer & Communications Industry Association seeks leave to file an amicus brief by Aug. 4 in support of the plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction to block Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R) from enforcing SB-419, the state’s TikTok ban, when it takes effect Jan. 1 (see 2307070002), said CCIA’s unopposed motion Wednesday (docket 9:23-cv-00061) in U.S. District Court for Montana in Missoula. The ACLU together with Electronic Frontier Foundation and NetChoice in tandem with the Chamber of Progress also filed unopposed motions for leave Wednesday to submit amicus briefs by Aug. 4 in support of the injunction.
The Commerce Department published notices in the Federal Register July 27 on the following AD/CV duty proceedings (any notices that announce changes to AD/CV duty rates, scope, affected firms or effective dates will be detailed in another ITT article):
The Commerce Department has published the preliminary results of its antidumping duty administrative review on passenger vehicle and light truck tires from Thailand (A-549-842). In the final results of this review, Commerce will set assessment rates for subject merchandise from the 10 companies under review entered Jan. 6, 2021, through June 30, 2022.
The Commerce Department has released the preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review on citric acid and certain citrate salts from Colombia (A-301-803). The agency calculated an AD rate of 6.1% for Sucroal S.A. Any changes to Sucroal's cash deposit rate would take effect on the publication date of the final results of this review, currently due in November. Once Commerce issues its final results, the agency will assess AD duties at importer-specific rates for entries of subject merchandise from Sucroal entered July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022, it said.
A 21-month-old Fresno, California, child, LK, was seriously injured after she ingested a button battery that fell out of a wireless color-changing LED light remote control, said a negligence lawsuit Tuesday against Amazon (docket 1:23-cv-01112) in U.S. District Court for Eastern California in Fresno. Plaintiff Joanne Knupp, LK’s mother, said the child experienced “extreme pain and suffering” after swallowing the battery Feb. 16 and the damage was so severe she had to undergo 14 surgeries to remove the battery and address organ damage. The battery, which lodged in and burned through LK’s esophagus, caused a tracheoesophageal fistula, said the complaint, resulting in tissue damage with “prolonged risk of catastrophic bleeding,” it said. LK suffered numerous traumatic diagnostic procedures, sedated CT scans, bronchoscopies, endoscopies and intubations, said the complaint. Her condition has required round-the-clock care, plus a “constant flow of drugs for pain, anxiety, and to reduce enhanced risks of infection,” it said. The wireless remote, for color-changing “fairly lights,” was sold under Amazon’s Homemory brand. LK’s injury “did not need to happen,” and it wouldn't have happened if the product had adequate safety precautions to prevent the remote’s access cover from falling open, and if it had been "manufactured, marketed, and sold in a manner that was safe,” said the complaint. In addition to negligence, the complaint asserts claims of product liability for defective design and manufacturing and failure to warn of a defective condition. It also charged Amazon with breach of implied contract and emotional distress. Plaintiffs seek lost earnings and healthcare expenses; costs of mental anguish and emotional distress; costs for medical care, lodging, travel and incidental expenses; punitive damages and legal costs; and a preliminary and permanent injunction barring Amazon from selling the defective products. It also seeks a product recall.
The Commerce Department is amending the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on steel concrete reinforcing bar from Mexico (A-201-844), to correct a ministerial error alleged in comments following the publication of the final results on June 9. These amended final results will be used to set final assessments of AD duties on importers for subject merchandise entered Nov. 1, 2020, through Oct. 31, 2021.
The Commerce Department has issued the final results of its countervailing duty administrative review on on forged steel fluid end blocks from India (C-533-894). It said it made changes to its preliminary results, based on comments received, for the one company under review, Bharat Forge Limited. Commerce set a new CVD cash deposit rate of 3.95% for Bharat Forge. The rate will also apply for assessment purposes for entries of subject merchandise from Bharat Forge during calendar year 2021. Commerce also calculated a 2.78% AD rate that will apply for assessment purposes only for entries from Bharat Forge during the period May 26, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2020. The new 3.95% CVD cash deposit rate for Bharat Forge takes effect July 27, the date these final results are set for publication in the Federal Register.
The Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission published the following Federal Register notices July 27 on AD/CVD proceedings:
U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty for Western Louisiana in Monroe erred when he imposed his July 4 injunction barring dozens of Biden administration officials from conversing with social media platforms on content moderation (see 2307050042), said DOJ’s opening brief Tuesday (docket 23-30445) in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the government's motion to continue the stay in the injunction pending appeal.
U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty granted Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Children’s Health Defense’s April motion (see 2304050007) to consolidate their freedom of speech lawsuit with Missouri v. Biden, said his Monday order (docket 3:22-cv-01213) in U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana in Monroe. Biden defendants didn't oppose the motion to consolidate provided standing is established by the plaintiffs in Kennedy v. Biden, but four individual Missouri plaintiffs objected, filing an opposition last week (see 2307210011) saying they “have no desire to have their legal claims tainted by political wrangling or the tabloid atmosphere that has come to accompany national elections.” The individual plaintiffs also alleged consolidation would likely result in disagreements among counsel for plaintiffs. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) and Louisiana AG Jeff Landry (R) didn't oppose consolidation. Both lawsuits, against nearly 70 individuals and agencies of the federal government, allege First Amendment violations involving suppression of speech about COVID-19, vaccine information and mask mandates. In his order Monday, Doughty noted consolidation doesn’t merge the two cases into one, but the primary factor is “the existence of common questions of law or fact.” The purpose of consolidation is to promote “convenience and economy while avoiding waste and inefficiency,” he said. In Missouri v. Biden, government defendants filed an emergency motion to stay Doughty’s July 4 preliminary injunction in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which blocked dozens of Biden administration officials from conversing with social media companies about content moderation. Oral arguments are scheduled for Aug. 10 in the appeals court; no trial date has been set. In Kennedy v. Biden, a motion for preliminary injunction has been filed and briefed, but no ruling has been made and no trial date set. The two cases should be consolidated because most of the factors “weigh in favor of consolidation,” Doughty said. “The issue of suppression of free speech by the government by coercing and/or significantly encouraging social media platforms is the same,” he said, and both cases involve the exact same defendants and are pending in the same district before the same judge. Doughty won’t rule on the preliminary injunction in Kennedy v. Biden until after a ruling by the 5th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court on the preliminary injunction in Missouri v. Biden, he said: “That will keep the consolidation from complicating the matter on appeal and will likely result in a more streamlined resolution of the preliminary injunction in Kennedy v. Biden.” Commenting on the individual plaintiffs’ concerns about politics-related prejudice, Doughty said, “This court does not decide cases based on politics, but based on the United States Constitution."