John Does stole an Apple email account that Keyvan Samini had controlled and used for more than 12 years, alleged his complaint Tuesday (docket 8:24-cv-00249) against Apple and John Does 1-10 in U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana. Samini alleges Apple has contributed to the harm he has suffered by not doing what it could within its "technological ability" to rectify the harm.
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A petitioner told the court Feb. 2 that an exporter had filed its remand comments late because it replied in the response time allocated for defendant-intervenors, but had argued in its secondary capacity as a plaintiff. The exporter disagreed, saying it had been “clearly identified” as a defendant-intervenor by the court (Ellwood City Forge Co. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00077).
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Jan. 29-Feb. 4:
Importers J. Conrad and Metropolitan Staple Corp. filed a stipulation of dismissal on Feb. 5 with the Court of International Trade in both of their cases challenging the expansion of the Section 232 steel and aluminum duties onto derivative products. The dismissals were filed in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision not to review a case from exporter Oman Fasteners on the same issue (see 2401080037). The high court's refusal to hear the case marked the sixth time the court turned down the opportunity to review presidential Section 232 action taken under President Donald Trump. The cases brought by J. Conrad and Metropolitan Staple Corp. were stayed until the Oman Fastener matter was final (J. Conrad Ltd v. United States, CIT # 20-00052) (Metropolitan Staple Corp. v. United States, CIT # 20-00053).
The U.S. waived its right to file a response to a U.S. Supreme Court petition in a False Claims Act case brought by whistleblower Brutus Trading. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said in the government's waiver, filed Feb. 2, that it won't respond to the petition "unless requested to do so by the Court" (Brutus Trading v. Standard Chartered, Sup. Ct. # 23-813).
In a Jan. 31 supplemental filing after oral arguments held a week earlier by the Court of International Trade, petitioners again rejected the Commerce Department's calculation of a Turkish exporter's duty drawback adjustment. On the same day, DOJ pushed back in its own supplemental filings on a pair of questions from the court (Assan Aluminyum Sanayi ve Ticaret v. U.S., CIT #21-00246).
A Canadian steel products exporter asked the Court of International Trade to reverse a Jan. 31 dismissal of six of its cases for failure to prosecute, saying its lawyers had accidentally overlooked the deadline while negotiating with the government out of court (Arcelormittal Long Products Canada G.P. v. U.S., CIT # 21-00037, -00038, -00039, -00040, -00041, -00042).
German exporters, led by Ilsenburger Grobblech, filed an opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit challenging the Commerce Department's decision to use adverse facts available against exporter Salzgitter Mannesmann Stahlhandel in an antidumping duty investigation on cut-to-length carbon and alloy steel plate from Germany (Ilsenburger Grobblech GmbH v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1219).