Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Hickey for Western Arkansas in El Dorado granted the unopposed motion from TikTok and ByteDance to stay their Tuesday deadline to respond to Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin’s (R) fraud allegations, pending Griffin’s anticipated motion to remand the case to Union County Circuit Court where it originated, said Hickey’s signed order Monday (docket 1:23-cv-01038). Good cause exists for granting the motion, said the order, setting June 8 as the deadline for Griffin to file his motion to remand. If the court denies the motion to remand, Griffin will get 30 days to amend his complaint, and TikTok and ByteDance will have 30 days after the filing of the amended complaint “to file their responsive pleadings,” said the order. If the court denies the motion for remand and Griffin doesn’t want to amend his complaint, TikTok and ByteDance will then have 30 days after the denial to file their responsive pleadings to Griffin’s “original, unamended complaint,” it said. Griffin alleges TikTok’s U.S. privacy policy is misleading because it doesn’t alert the public to TikTok’s ability to share personal data with individuals or entities in China (see 2305100036). The complaint asserts seven claims under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and seeks a permanent injunction to compel TikTok to cease its allegedly false and deceptive statements and omissions about the risk of access to and exploitation of consumers’ content and data by Beijing and the Chinese Communist Party.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade should not again remand an antidumping duty investigation on forged steel fluid end blocks from Germany because respondent Ellwood City Forge failed to exhaust its administrative remedies regarding the margin program before it filed suit at CIT, intervenor Edelstahl Siegen said in its May 15 remand comments (Ellwood City Forge v. U.S., CIT # 21-00077).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of May 8-14:
The Court of International Trade granted the Commerce Department's voluntary request for remand for 120 days to review information submitted by antidumping duty respondent Officine Tecnosider on the agency's use of a quarterly cost methodology. Commerce asked for the remand since it said it couldn't find its analysis of the quarterly average prices of steel slab when prepping its reply brief to Officine Tecnosider in a case on the administrative review of the AD order on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from Italy for 2020-21 (see 2305080066) (Officine Tecnosider v. United States, CIT # 23-00001).
Plaintiffs EDN Global and its CEO, Jerome Edmondson, are seeking a “do-over,” trying to “plead around” a contract at the heart of a fraud claim against AT&T Global Services, said the defendant in a Friday memorandum (docket 3:23-cv-00355) in support of its amended motion to dismiss in U.S. District Court for Northern Texas in Dallas.
Trade Law Daily is providing readers with the top stories from last week in case you missed them. All articles can be found by searching on the title or by clicking on the hyperlinked reference number.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
No good cause exists for the Court of International Trade to grant the Commerce Department another 30 days to file its remand results in an antidumping duty case on wind towers from Spain, exporter Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy said in a reply brief. Commerce filed its motion to extend one day before the parties' comments on the draft remand results were due, claiming that more time is needed for parties to comment and for the agency to analyze the comments (Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy v. United States, CIT # 21-00449).
Importer Acquisition 362, d/b/a Strategic Import Supply (SIS), filed a petition for writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion requiring protests to be filed within 180 days of liquidation and not the date the Commerce Department issues antidumping and countervailing duty instructions to CBP. SIS said that by establishing this requirement, the appellate court eliminated one statutory mechanism under which importers can file protests and encourages "premature, incomplete, sham protest filings" (Acquisition 362 v. U.S., U.S. # 22-1102).