Notable Business Cases the Court Granted Last Month

Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services: Whether a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal without prejudice is a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Rule 60(b)?

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services: Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of a Title VII federal employment discrimination claim, a “majority group” plaintiff in a reverse discrimination case, here, a heterosexual woman alleging that she was the victim of discrimination based on her sexual orientation, must also show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority?”

FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.: Whether a manufacturer may file a petition for review in a circuit where it does not reside or have its primary place of business as long as it is joined by a seller of its products located within that circuit?

McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp.: Whether the Hobbs Act, which strips district courts of the authority to review decisions of the Federal Communications Commission, required the district court to accept the FCC’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act?

Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas & Interim Storage Partners v. Texas (consolidated): Whether the Hobbs Act, which allows parties aggrieved by final agency orders to seek review in a federal court of appeals, authorizes nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency’s statutory power; and whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store nuclear fuel away from the nuclear-reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated?

CC/Devas Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. & Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. (consolidated): Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act?

Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency & PacifiCorp v. Environmental Protection Agency (consolidated); Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining: Whether venue under the Clean Air Act lies exclusively in the D.C. Circuit because the Environmental Protection Agency’s denial of states’ implementation plans are “nationally applicable” (or “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect”), or in the appropriate federal circuit court a state implementation plan is “locally or regionally applicable?”

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Susan Feibus, Mark Magyar, Kyle Asher, Christopher Sakauye, Monika Harris, or Ryan VanOver.