Kimberly-Clark Seeks Supreme Court Review in “Flushable” Wipes Case

roibal_lucia_webGuest Commentary

By Lucía Roibal, an Associate with Morrison & Foerster LLP in the firm’s San Francisco, CA office. This commentary is reposted with permission, originally appearing on November 30, 2018 in the firm’s Class Dismissed  blog.

On September 6, 2018, Kimberly-Clark and affiliates filed a petition for writ of certiorari in Kimberly-Clark, et al. v. Davidson, No. 18-304, following a decision in the Ninth Circuit denying Kimberly-Clark’s motion to dismiss.  As noted in previous posts (here and here), the Ninth Circuit had resolved a split among district courts in the circuit and held that a previously deceived consumer may have standing to seek an injunction against false advertising or labeling if he or she sufficiently alleges intent to repurchase the product in the future.  In Kimberly-Clark’s petition, the companies ask the Supreme Court to resolve the issue of whether a consumer, who after using a product and determining that a representation concerning that product is allegedly misleading, can plausibly allege a “real and immediate threat” that she will be deceived by the same representation in the future so as to establish standing to seek an injunction. Continue reading “Kimberly-Clark Seeks Supreme Court Review in “Flushable” Wipes Case”

Update: Justices Seek Federal Government’s Views on Pending Clean Water Act Suit Petitions

supreme courtIn a November 20 Featured Expert Contributor post, Cert Petitions May Mean Supreme Court Will Clarify Clean Water Act Jurisdiction, Sidley Austin LLP partner Sam Boxerman and his colleague Ben Tannen discussed two related certiorari petitions pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Both petitions ask the Court to review circuit court decisions that held discharges through groundwater are an addition of a pollutant to “waters of the United States” from a point source.

Today, the Court released an Order calling for the views of the Solicitor General on the petitions in Hawai’i Wildlife Fund v. Cty. of Maui, Case No. 18-260 (Aug. 27, 2018) and Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. v. Upstate Forever, Case No. 18-268 (Aug. 28, 2018).

The Order asked the Solicitor General to provide his views on the petitions by Friday, January 4, 2019.

What Did We Learn From the Supreme Court Oral Argument in Apple v. Pepper?

supreme courtWe’ve blogged previously about the Supreme Court’s biggest antitrust case of the October Term 2018, Apple v. Pepper. The case asks the Court to decide whether iPhone users who buy apps from Apple’s App Store may sue Apple for alleged antitrust violations, or whether only third-party app developers may bring such claims. The answer turns on whether and how the Court applies the rule announced in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, which holds that only the direct purchaser of a good or service may sue an allegedly abusive monopolist for damages.

The Court heard oral argument in the case on Monday morning. Apple is represented by Daniel Wall of Latham & Watkins. He argues that the Illinois Brick rule is dispositive here for Apple because the plaintiffs’ antitrust claim hinges on precisely the sort of “pass through” theory of harm that Illinois Brick prohibits. Continue reading “What Did We Learn From the Supreme Court Oral Argument in Apple v. Pepper?”

Cert Petitions May Mean Supreme Court Will Clarify Clean Water Act Jurisdiction

 

Featured Expert Contributor, Environmental Law and Policy

Samuel B. Boxerman, Sidley Austin LLP, with Ben Tannen, Sidley Austin LLP

The definition of waters of the United States is central to the CWA.  At its core, the Act bans “the discharge of any pollutant” except in compliance with other provisions of the Act, such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permitting program.  33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).  “Discharge of a pollutant” is defined in relevant part as “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source,” where (i) “navigable waters” are “the waters of the United States,”  and (ii) a “point source” is “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.”  See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1362(7), (12) and (14). Continue reading “Cert Petitions May Mean Supreme Court Will Clarify Clean Water Act Jurisdiction”

Updates: Supreme Court Refuses to Review Philly Cab Drivers’ Suit Against Uber

supreme courtOn April 24 in Ruling on Philly Taxis’ Suit vs. Uber, Third Circuit Reaffirms Antitrust Focus on Competition, not Competitors, one of our Featured Expert Contributors on antitrust, Baker Botts partner Anthony Swisher, wrote about a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decision that rejected a claim for attempted monopolization lodged against Uber. The taxi association sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, which yesterday announced in an orders list that it had denied the request.

A denial of certiorari has no precedential value; it simply means that the lower court decision stands. That said, the outcome may deter taxi organizations from other jurisdictions, as well as perhaps other businesses whose market share is threatened by “gig economy” entities, from filing similar antitrust suits. In addition, the Court let stand a decision that properly elevated protection of consumers over assisting competitors, a fundamental antitrust-law concept that is under attack by some politicians, legal activists, and antitrust academics. As the Third Circuit explained:

Appellants urge the application of antitrust laws for the express opposite purpose of antitrust laws: to compensate for their loss of profits due to increased competition from Uber. However, harm to Appellants’ business does not equal harm to competition.

At Stake in “Apple v. Pepper”: Why the Supreme Court’s Direct-Purchaser Rule is a “Super-Precedent”

app storeOne of the more interesting cases the Supreme Court will hear in the new term is Apple, Inc. v. Pepper. We’ve blogged previously about the case here. Superficially, the Court will decide whether iPhone users who buy apps from Apple’s App Store may sue Apple for alleged antitrust violations, or whether only app developers may bring such claims. But more fundamentally, resolution of the case hinges on the continued viability of Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, which holds that only the direct purchaser of a good or service may sue an allegedly abusive monopolist for damages.

In February, two high-level officials in the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division floated the possibility of asking the Supreme Court to abandon Illinois Brick’s direct-purchaser rule. But the Solicitor General, in the United States’ amicus brief, insists that the question is not properly joined in the case. If either the Respondents or their amici urge the Court to overturn Illinois Brick, they will face a high hurdle. Continue reading “At Stake in “Apple v. Pepper”: Why the Supreme Court’s Direct-Purchaser Rule is a “Super-Precedent””

New “WLF Month in Review” Chronicles Our Litigation and Regulatory Filings and Results

WLF Month in ReviewWashington Legal Foundation has released the inaugural edition of a newsletter, “WLF Month in Review,” that will keep our supporters, friends, and other interested parties informed about the litigation briefs we have filed and the regulatory proceedings in which we are participating.

The August 2018 edition includes developments from June and July, and can be viewed here. If there is a particular item you are interested in, clicking on that item on the first page will take you to a full description.