Archive for the 'Court Filings' Category

DOCKET for FORSYTH v MPAA, Dec 29, 2016-Jan 23, 2017

Monday, January 23rd, 2017

EXCERPT:
01/23/2017 72 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re National Association of Theatre Owners’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Hearing Date for Motion for Attorneys’ Fees filed by Timothy Forsyth.
01/23/2017 73 STIPULATION AND ORDER re National Association of Theatre Owners’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Hearing Date for Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/23/17.
01/23/2017 […]

USA v PHILIP MORRIS, et. al.: PUBLIC HEALTH INTERVENORS’ MEMORANDUM OF POSITION AS REQUIRED BY ORDER #65-REMAND, Jan 17, 2017

Tuesday, January 17th, 2017

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
Particularly in light of the Tobacco Industry’s recent acknowledgement to this Court that, as a result of the D.C. Circuit’s November 1, 2016 ruling on the relevant issue, “it is now clear that Defendant R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is required to publish three sets of corrective statements on television – […]

USA v PHILIP MORRIS, et. al.: UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO ORDER #65-REMAND, Jan 17, 2017

Tuesday, January 17th, 2017

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
This Court directed the parties to submit their positions by January 17, 2017, and set a status conference for January 31, 2017. . .
The United States agrees with the tobacco companies’ explanation about why the Court of Appeals’ recent decision raises no issues for this Court or the parties to […]

USA v PHILIP MORRIS, et. al.: MANUFACTURERS’ MEMORANDUM OF POSITION, Jan 10, 2017

Thursday, January 12th, 2017

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
The appellate mandate released on December 29, 2016 arose from Defendant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company’s appeal from Order #56-Remand, which denied Reynolds’ motion for relief from this Court’s requirement that Reynolds publish the corrective statements on television on behalf of former-Defendant Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation. Accordingly, it is now […]

DOCKET for USA v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, et al, Dec 27, 2016-Jan 10, 2017

Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017

EXCERPT:
01/03/2017 Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Memoranda of position due by 1/17/2017. Status Conference set for 1/31/2017 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 26A before Judge Gladys Kessler. (CL) (Entered: 01/03/2017)
END EXCERPT

USA v PHILIP MORRIS, et. al.: ORDER #65-Remand, Jan 3, 2017

Tuesday, January 3rd, 2017

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
On December 29, 2016, the Court of Appeals released the Mandate in this case.
WHEREFORE, it is this 3rd day of January, 2017, hereby
ORDERED, that counsel are to submit, no later than January 17,2017, Memoranda as to what the positions are of the Parties concerned; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Parties […]

USA v PHILIP MORRIS, et. al. Appeal: MANDATE ISSUED to Clerk, U.S. District Court, Dec 29, 2016

Friday, December 30th, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
M A N D A T E
In accordance with the judgment of November 1, 2016, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41, this constitutes the formal mandate of this court.
END EXCERPT

FORSYTH v MPAA: PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF APPEAL, Dec 29, 2016

Friday, December 30th, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
Notice is hereby given that Plaintiff Timothy Forsyth appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the Judgment entered in the above-captioned action on December 1, 2016, Dkt. No. 65 (attached hereto as Exhibit A), including the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, dated November 10, […]

CEI v DOT: RESPONDENT FINAL BRIEF, Dec 28, 2016

Wednesday, December 28th, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
The Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) reasonably concluded that e-cigarettes fall within the statutory ban on “smoking“ in aircraft.
. . .
The Secretary‘s regulatory definition, which includes e-cigarettes within the meaning of “smoking,“ furthers the statutory purpose of preserving cabin air quality, avoiding passenger and crew discomfort, and reducing crewmembers‘ exposure […]

USA v PHILIP MORRIS, et. al. Appeal: APPELLANTS’ REPLY BRIEF, Dec 22, 2016

Thursday, December 22nd, 2016

The PDF is Here
EXCERPT:
This Court rejected this gamesmanship in the Corrective Statements Decision when it held that Defendants correctly objected to publishing the original preambles. It should do so again here because the district court’s revised preambles suffer from the same flaws as the preambles previously invalidated by this Court: The revised preambles unambiguously […]