Archive for the 'Court Filings' Category

USA v PHILIP MORRIS, et. al. Appeal: APPELLEE BRIEF, Dec 2, 2016

Friday, December 2nd, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
Although this Court already held that the corrective statements may, consistent with RICO and the First Amendment, compel the cigarette manufacturers to “reveal the previously hidden truth about their products,” the companies now argue that the district court somehow contravened this Court’s past rulings by adopting preambles stating “Here is […]

FORSYTH v MPAA: JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/1/16

Friday, December 2nd, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
This action having come before the Court, The Honorable Richard Seeborg, District Judge, presiding, and the issues having been duly heard and a decision having been duly rendered,
It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff take nothing and that the action be dismissed with prejudice.
END EXCERPT

DOCKET for FORSYTH v MPAA, Nov 7-Dec 1, 2016

Friday, December 2nd, 2016

EXCERPT:
12/01/2016 65 JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/1/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2016) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
END EXCERPT

CEI v DOT: BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS, Nov 28, 2016

Monday, November 28th, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
Contrary to Petitioners’ argument, the plain meaning of the term “smoking” does not unambiguously refer to the combustion of tobacco products. Dictionary definitions support a broad meaning of the term “smoking” as inhaling and exhaling the smoke or fumes of a device, and there is no reason to exclude e-cigarettes or […]

FORSYTH v MPAA: STIPULATION AND ORDER, Nov 28, 2016

Monday, November 28th, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
A. On November 10, 2016, the Court granted Defendants’ special motion to strike and motion to dismiss with leave to amend.
B. Plaintiff does not intend to amend the complaint. Accordingly, Defendants request that the Court enter judgment pursuant to Rule 58.
C. The parties further stipulate that, pursuant to Rule […]

CEI v DOT: FINAL REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONERS, Nov 22, 2016

Saturday, November 26th, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
Thirty years ago this Court noted that “some will find ambiguity in a ‘No Smoking’ sign.”1 DOT has done exactly that, claiming that Congress’s 1989 smoking ban on airlines is so ambiguous that the agency is entitled, under Chevron, to redefine it to encompass e-cigarettes. DOT’s claim runs directly counter to […]

CEI v DOT: FINAL OPENING BRIEF OF PETITIONERS, Nov 22, 2016

Saturday, November 26th, 2016

The PDF of the main argument (pp 1-74) is Here.
The PDFs of the “STATUTORY ADDENDUM” and “ADDENDUM ON STANDING” are too large to upload.
EXCERPT:
DOT improperly banned the use of e-cigarettes under the anti-smoking statute, 49 U.S.C. § 41706, because e-cigarettes do not burn (or even contain) tobacco, much less produce smoke. DOT’s reliance […]

CEI v DOT: JOINT APPENDIX, Nov 14 2016

Friday, November 25th, 2016

11/14/2016 Open Document JOINT APPENDIX [1645941] filed by Competitive Enterprise Institute, Consumer Advocates for Smokefree Alternatives Association and Gordon Cummings. [Volumes: 1] [Service Date: 11/14/2016 ] [16-1128] (Bader, Hans)
EXCERPT:
I certify that the attached index is a list of all the documents filed in Docket No. DOT-OST-2011-0044. The documents comprise the administrative record in the matter under review […]

FORSYTH v MPAA: STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Nov 22, 2016

Friday, November 25th, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
A. On November 10, 2016, the Court granted Defendants’special motion to strike and
motion to dismiss with leave to amend.
B. Plaintiff does not intend to amend the complaint. Accordingly, Defendants request that
the Court enter judgment pursuant to Rule 58.
C. The parties further stipulate that, pursuant to Rule 54(d)(2)(B) and Local […]

USA v Philip Morris, et. al.: ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES, Nov 16, 2016

Saturday, November 19th, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
Nothing in this Court’s ruling required the removal of the phrase “Here is the truth” from the statements’ text. Nor did the Court require the district court to reopen the process of formulating the text of the corrective statements, much less to adopt the Manufacturers’ newly proposed text in lieu […]