CIGAR ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, et al. v FDA: NOTICE TO PARTIES, Apr 3, 2017

April 3, 2017 4:03 pm by Gene Borio

The PDF is Here

EXCERPT:

I hereby provide notice to the parties that my former law firm, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, has, from time to time, and still may, represent the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (“CTFK”). When I was a lawyer at the firm, I did not work on any matter on behalf of CTFK. Additionally, my wife is a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. She has never worked on a matter for CTFK.

. . .

I do not know whether Zuckerman Spaeder LLP is assisting CTFK in the amicus brief it intends to file in this matter. In the event that my former firm has provided or will provide any assistance or advice concerning the amicus brief that CTFK intends to file, CTFK shall file a notice with the court

END EXCERPT

FULL TEXT:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________

Cigar Association of America, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01460 (APM)

_________________________________________

NOTICE TO PARTIES

I hereby provide notice to the parties that my former law firm, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, has, from time to time, and still may, represent the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (“CTFK”). When I was a lawyer at the firm, I did not work on any matter on behalf of CTFK. Additionally, my wife is a partner at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. She has never worked on a matter for CTFK.

I do not know whether Zuckerman Spaeder LLP is assisting CTFK in the amicus brief it intends to file in this matter. In the event that my former firm has provided or will provide any assistance or advice concerning the amicus brief that CTFK intends to file, CTFK shall file a notice with the court no later than April 5, 2017, which (1) identifies in general terms the extent of the work done or intended to be done by Zuckerman Spaeder LLP and (2) names the lawyers involved in the representation. If CTFK does not file a notice, I will assume that my former firm has had and will have no involvement in the proposed amicus brief.

Also, the parties should be aware that I determined in a different case that my former firm’s representation of CTFK did not create a conflict that required my recusal in that matter. See Philip Morris USA Inc. v. FDA, 156 F. Supp. 3d 36 (D.D.C. 2016).

Dated: April 3, 2017 Amit P. Mehta

United States District Judge

Leave a Reply

The primary purpose of this site is to provide information in a timely manner. Postings should be informative. The usual rules apply: No libel, no profanity, no personal abuse, keep it on topic, and short.

If you are scheduled as a court witness, CHECK with your lawyer before posting anything here!