The Commerce Department has released the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on corrosion-resistant steel products from South Korea (A-580-878). These final results will be used to set final assessments of AD duties on importers for subject merchandise entered July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021.
The Commerce Department issued the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on corrosion-resistant steel products from Taiwan (A-583-856). These final results will be used to set final assessments of AD duties on importers for subject merchandise entered July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021.
"In respect of the Court’s orders," said an FTC spokesperson Wednesday, the agency "is not in a position to comment at this time" about the apparent denial Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Edward Davila for Northern California of the commission's injunction to block Meta's Within Unlimited buy. Meta didn't respond to requests for comment. CCIA President Matt Schruers hailed the order, which remained under seal Wednesday afternoon. The court's ruling "is consistent with decades of legal precedent," said Schruers in a statement. "This decision will encourage innovation and investment by increasing legal certainty around technology transactions.” The court’s decision is sealed, so its reasoning is not being made public, "but the outcome is no surprise," blogged the Competitive Enterprise Institute Wednesday. "In opposing the purchase, the nation’s top consumer advocate is playing fortune teller and breaking with 40 years of antitrust precedent," said CEI. "While the agency should focus on consumer welfare, it has instead tried to meddle in a market that does not yet exist." A virtual status conference is set for Feb. 7 at 10 a.m. PST, apparently to discuss next steps after the injunction's denial, said a text-only clerk’s notice entry Tuesday (docket 5:22-CV-04325). Davila did sign an order late Tuesday granting the FTC’s emergency motion to extend the agency’s jointly stipulated temporary restraining order with Meta barring consummation of the Within transaction until the end of the first business day after Davila rules on the injunction (see 2301310042). The TRO was due to expire at 11:59 p.m. PST Tuesday. The FTC alternatively asked for a seven-day extension of the TRO to eliminate the need for another emergency motion should Davila deny the preliminary injunction. Davila’s order was also sealed, so it’s unknown which TRO option he chose.
A freedom of speech lawsuit against Georgia Public Service Commissioner Tim Echols (R) should be dismissed after the defendant unblocked plaintiff Patty Durand, his 2022 Democratic challenger in a canceled November PSC election, from posting on his Facebook and Twitter pages, said a Monday motion to dismiss (docket 1:22-cv-4548) in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta. Durand’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are “moot” because Echols unblocked his rival and “has no intention of -- and indeed, will not -- block her in the future,” said the filing. Durand’s claims for monetary damages are barred by qualified immunity because the law isn't “clearly established” that Echols’ conduct was unconstitutional, he said. Durand voluntarily dismissed her motion for a preliminary injunction last month after Echols committed to not deleting any comments on social media accounts, but her claim for monetary damages remained pending (see 2301100012). Durand sued Echols in November for allegedly retaliating against her and violating her free speech rights under the First and 14th amendments by deleting and blocking her posts on his social media accounts. The status of the election is in limbo after U.S. District Court Judge Steven Grimberg ruled in August that the PSC’s at-large elections violate the Voting Rights Act. That ruling is under appeal at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The FTC filed a motion Tuesday for an “emergency extension” of its joint stipulated temporary restraining order that bars Meta from consummating its Within Unlimited buy until after 11:59 p.m. Pacific time on the first business day after the court rules on its motion for a preliminary injunction. In the alternative, the FTC requests a seven-day extension in the TRO, “which would eliminate the need for an additional immediate emergency motion in the event the Court denies the preliminary injunction,” said the motion (docket 5:22-cv-04325) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose. The FTC asked U.S. District Judge Edward Davila to “issue this relief” before 11:59 p.m. PST Tuesday when the existing TRO was to expire. Doing so will preserve the status quo” until on the preliminary injunction “and the parties can determine their immediate next steps,” it said. Consummation of Meta's Within buy "will irreparably harm the FTC’s ability to obtain effective relief for the public at the conclusion of any further proceedings," said FTC Senior Trial Counsel Abby Dennis in a declaration accompanying the emergency motion. “Given the exigent circumstances” of the FTC’s emergency motion, “and that time is of the essence, the FTC could not meet and confer” with Meta before filing the motion and has sought Meta’s consent for extending the TRO, said Dennis. She gave no explanation why the agency let the expiring TRO go down to the wire.
The Commerce Department released the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on polyethylene terephthalate film from India (A-533-824). Commerce continued its preliminary finding that Jindal Poly Films and SRF Limited of India did not undersell subject merchandise during the period of review, assigning each company a zero percent AD duty rate. Subject merchandise from Jindal and SRF entered July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021, will be liquidated without any assessment of AD duties, and future entries of subject merchandise exported by Jindal and SRF will not be subject to AD duty cash deposit requirements until further notice. The new AD duty cash deposit rate takes effect Feb. 2, when the final results are set to be published in the Federal Register.
The stipulated final judgment that New York reached with ISP plaintiffs in July 2021 over the state’s Affordable Broadband Act “did not effectuate a waiver” of the state’s right to appeal the ABA’s permanent injunction, the Office of New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) told the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a supplemental brief Monday (docket 21-1975). If the ISP plaintiffs’ “understanding is correct,” the New York AG “did not relinquish the arguments presented on appeal and has standing to pursue them,” they said in their supplemental brief. But if the 2nd Circuit disagrees, the New York AG “would have relinquished those arguments and lacks standing to pursue this appeal,” they said. The 2nd Circuit ordered the supplemental briefs Jan. 20 on whether the court has appellate jurisdiction over the lower court’s final judgment that the parties negotiated (see 2301230040). New York “retains a concrete and redressable stake in this litigation,” said James’ brief. The district court’s injunction against enforcement of the ABA “is causing an ongoing injury to New York and specifically to low-income New Yorkers,” it said. “This injury would be redressed by a favorable ruling from this Court rejecting plaintiffs’ federal-preemption theories and reversing the final judgment and injunction contingent on those theories.” The stipulated judgment at issue “bears some similarity to a conditional plea agreement, whereby a criminal defendant may plead guilty while expressly preserving for appellate review an interlocutory ruling” that's effectively, even if not always technically, dispositive of the case, it said. When the ISP associations agreed to the New York AG’s proposal to convert the preliminary injunction ruling in the associations’ favor into a stipulated final judgment imposing a permanent injunction, the associations understood that the New York AG “was not relinquishing her right to appeal that permanent injunction,” said the ISP plaintiffs. They urged the 2nd Circuit to affirm the district court’s final judgment “permanently enjoining” the ABA and declaring it preempted by federal law.
Plaintiff NetChoice’s motion for a preliminary injunction is due Feb. 17 in its lawsuit seeking to invalidate California’s age-appropriate social media design law (see 2212140063), said a text-only entry Sunday (docket 5:22-cv-08861) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose. California’s response to the motion is due April 21, and NetChoice’s reply brief is due May 19, said the entry. NetChoice alleges AB-2273 violates the First Amendment by telling sites how to “manage constitutionally protected speech.” California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) defends the law as working to address “some of the real and demonstrated harms associated with social media and other online products and services.”
The stipulated final judgment that New York reached with ISP plaintiffs in July 2021 over the state’s Affordable Broadband Act “did not effectuate a waiver” of the state’s right to appeal the ABA’s permanent injunction, the Office of New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) told the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a supplemental brief Monday (docket 21-1975). If the ISP plaintiffs’ “understanding is correct,” the New York AG “did not relinquish the arguments presented on appeal and has standing to pursue them,” they said in their supplemental brief. But if the 2nd Circuit disagrees, the New York AG “would have relinquished those arguments and lacks standing to pursue this appeal,” they said. The 2nd Circuit ordered the supplemental briefs Jan. 20 on whether the court has appellate jurisdiction over the lower court’s final judgment that the parties negotiated (see 2301230040). New York “retains a concrete and redressable stake in this litigation,” said James’ brief. The district court’s injunction against enforcement of the ABA “is causing an ongoing injury to New York and specifically to low-income New Yorkers,” it said. “This injury would be redressed by a favorable ruling from this Court rejecting plaintiffs’ federal-preemption theories and reversing the final judgment and injunction contingent on those theories.” The stipulated judgment at issue “bears some similarity to a conditional plea agreement, whereby a criminal defendant may plead guilty while expressly preserving for appellate review an interlocutory ruling” that's effectively, even if not always technically, dispositive of the case, it said. When the ISP associations agreed to the New York AG’s proposal to convert the preliminary injunction ruling in the associations’ favor into a stipulated final judgment imposing a permanent injunction, the associations understood that the New York AG “was not relinquishing her right to appeal that permanent injunction,” said the ISP plaintiffs. They urged the 2nd Circuit to affirm the district court’s final judgment “permanently enjoining” the ABA and declaring it preempted by federal law.
U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant for Eastern Texas in Sherman should dismiss with prejudice AT&T’s false-advertising complaint against T-Mobile’s BannedSeniors.com campaign for failure to state a claim, said T-Mobile’s answer Friday (docket 4:22-cv-00760). A week earlier, Mazzant denied AT&T’s application for a preliminary injunction to halt the campaign (see 2301190009). AT&T’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands, said T-Mobile. AT&T also “cannot establish that it has suffered any damages, and its purported damages, if any, are vague, uncertain, imaginary, and speculative,” it said. T-Mobile seeks the recovery of court costs, plus “such other and further relief” as the court deems “just and proper,” it said.