Some $1,399 worth of SanDisk solid-state disk drives (SSDs) bought by plaintiff Emilio Pousa are “essentially worthless,” and parent company Western Digital didn't compensate him for his losses, said a Tuesday fraud class action (docket 5:23-cv-04281) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose. Pousa names Western Digital and “Does 1-10,” whose identities and involvement in the wrongdoing at issue will be revealed “if and when they become known,” said the complaint.
CBP's admission that imported desk pad and planning calendars meet the dictionary definition of "calendar" is evidence that the items should have been so classified as a calendar under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U.S. subheading 4910.00.2000 instead of the basket provision for other paper products in subheading 4820.10.4000, importer Blue Sky said in a motion for judgment filed Aug. 23 at the Court of International Trade. Blue Sky is attempting to overturn CBP's classification of four models of Blue Sky's weekly and monthly planning calendars. While both classifications are duty-free, the government's preferred classification carries additional Section 301 duties (Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. U.S., CIT # 21-00624).
AT&T’s Aug. 1 motion to dismiss (see 2308020058) should be denied because plaintiffs EDN Global and CEO Jerome Edmondson “alleged facts, which, if proven, state a claim for relief on each claim asserted,” said the plaintiffs’ opposition Monday (docket 3:23-cv-00355). The case stems from when Edmondson became AT&T’s first authorized minority dealer for the Commerce Department’s FirstNet public safety broadband network (see 2307130013). He alleges he lost more than $100 million in damages after AT&T pilfered his trade secrets, and inserted an all-white AT&T sales team to replace a qualified all-African American sales team and destroyed the sales organization he built. AT&T’s facts are inaccurate about the breach of contract, said the opposition. The contract claims against AT&T didn’t accrue until March 2021, it said. The plaintiffs also filed their action in June 2022, “well within the statute of limitations,” it said. The plaintiffs’ tort claims aren’t barred by the economic loss rule, it said. The tort claims are independent of the alleged contract with AT&T, and the plaintiffs’ losses aren’t “purely economic,” it said. If the economic loss rule is found to be applicable, “its application is barred by the misrepresentation exception,” it said.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 23 upheld the Commerce Department's deduction of Section 232 duties paid by Turkish exporter Noksel Celik Boru Sanayi from its U.S. price in the 2018-19 review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Turkey. Judge Jane Restani said she saw "no reason to vary" this finding, as previously made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, regarding the government's move to raise the duties solely on Turkish goods.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in an Aug. 21 summary order affirmed a New York district court's dismissal of Brutus Trading's qui tam False Claims Act against Standard Chartered, which accused the financial firm of facilitating illegal banking transactions on behalf of sanctioned parties. After Brutus filed the qui tam case, in which a party with evidence of fraud against the U.S. government can file a lawsuit on behalf of the government, the U.S. then moved to toss the matter after finding that the "factual allegations were unsupported," the legal theory "was not cognizable, and the continuation of the suit would waste considerable government resources" (Brutus Trading v. Standard Chartered Bank, 2nd Cir. # 20-2578).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in an Aug. 21 summary order affirmed a New York district court's dismissal of Brutus Trading's qui tam False Claims Act against Standard Chartered, which accused the financial firm of facilitating illegal banking transactions on behalf of sanctioned parties. After Brutus filed the qui tam case, in which a party with evidence of fraud against the U.S. government can file a lawsuit on behalf of the government, the U.S. then moved to toss the matter after finding that the "factual allegations were unsupported," the legal theory "was not cognizable, and the continuation of the suit would waste considerable government resources" (Brutus Trading v. Standard Chartered Bank, 2nd Cir. # 20-2578).
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of Aug. 14-20:
The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade: