Party Litigation
 Proof of Venue in Multi-Defendant Litigation
Waxler Transportation Co., Inc., et al. v. Trinity Marine Products, Inc., et al.
No. 07-CC-2125
Louisiana Supreme Court
NCLC urged the Louisiana Supreme Court to review whether plaintiffs must prove the defendants are joint tortfeasors in order to establish that venue is appropriate as to all defendants. In this case, one of the multiple defendants, Valspar Corporation, filed a venue exception challenging jurisdiction and introduced evidence proving that it could not be a joint tortfeasor with any defendant against whom venue was proper. The trial court and the appellate court refused to consider that evidence, allowing the plaintiff to rest on its initial allegations.
Motion to support review filed 12/10/07.
 View brief
Consolidation of Dissimilar Litigation and Risks of Jury Confusion
In re Alabama Medicaid Pharmaceuticals Average Wholesale Price Litigation
Nos. 1070310, 1070311 & 1070313
Supreme Court of Alabama
NCLC urged the Alabama Supreme Court to review and reverse the trial court's erroneous consolidation of the state's separate actions against three drug manufacturers. Employing a novel theory of liability and seeking punitive damages, these actions concern decisions involving hundreds of drugs over a fifteen year period. In its brief, NCLC argued that, by joining these cases together, the trial court set a dangerously low standard for consolidation that threatens defendants' rights to a fair trial and presents significant risks of jury confusion.
Amicus brief filed 11/21/07.
View brief
Challenge to OSHA's Incorporation of Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances
National Association of Manufacturers, et al. v. OSHA
Case No. 06-1122
U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
The Chamber joins other business organizations in a petition to challenge the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA's) practice of incorporating the "latest edition" of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists' (ACGIH) recommended workplace exposure limits for chemical substances into OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). Each year the ACGIH, which is a private, not-for-profit-non-governmental corporation, publishes recommended workplace exposure limits, known as Threshold Limit Values (TLVs). ACGIH's process does not permit outside parties to participate in the determination of TLVs. The Chamber argues that because of OSHA's practice of automatically incorporating the latest TLVs into the HCS, these TLV standards are never subject to the fundamental principles of due process and violate rulemaking requirements imposed on OSHA by the U.S. Constitution and other statutes and regulations.
Amicus brief filed 3/31/06.
 The Information Quality Act
The Salt Institute and the Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services
No. 05-1097
U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
NCLC has appealed a lower court ruling finding that neither the Salt Institute nor the Chamber has standing to bring a lawsuit charging that the government violated the Information Quality Act ("IQA") by failing to release the scientific data and methods supporting The Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension Sodium Trial or "DASH Sodium Trial", a study on the effects of dietary salt consumption on blood pressure. Having relied on this study to make recommendations about sodium intake, NCLC argued that the government should not be permitted to shield the underlying evidence from rigorous review.
The lower court also held that review of the agency's IQA action was not available under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because there was no final agency action involved and the agency actions at issue were committed to the agency's discretion. Appellants argue that the agency's denial of their IQA appeal constituted final agency action under the APA, and that the IQA and IQA Guidelines contain concrete standards for conducting judicial review.
Complaint filed 3/31/04. Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed 7/15/04. Moot court held 9/2/04. Oral argument held 9/3/04. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss granted 11/15/04. Appeal to the Fourth Circuit filed 1/11/2005. Appellants brief filed 4/15/05. Appellee's (Government's) brief filed 6/20/05. Appellants reply brief filed August 5, 2005. Oral argument to be held 2/02/06.
View complaint View Memorandum View Appellants/plaintiffs brief
 Protection of Employer Speech Rights from State Interference
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Lockyer
Nos. 03-55166 and 03-55169 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Following reconsideration of a May 2004 decision in the same case, a 3-judge federal appellate panel (but with one judge now dissenting) has reissued an important decision that prevents a state from using its funds to discourage employers from opposing union organizing efforts. On 9/6/05, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling that struck down provisions of a California law that prohibited the use of state funds "to assist, promote, or deter union organizing." The court held that this restriction, as well as other provisions of the statute, interfere with employers' protected rights under Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act to express their views to employees about unionization. The court held that by imposing the broad and burdensome restrictions contained in this statute on employers who contract with the state, California was acting as a regulator, not as a proprietor; accordingly, the court ruled that two well-established doctrines of federal labor law preemption invalidate various provisions of the statute.
Complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief filed 4/10/02. Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction denied 7/2/02. District court decision 9/16/02. Appeal filed 1/03. Chamber's brief filed 5/23/03. NLRB amicus brief supporting the Chamber's position filed 6/4/03. Oral argument held 9/12/03. Decision 4/20/04. Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing en banc filed by Appellants 5/18/04. Chamber's Answer to Petition for Rehearing on 6/30/04. Order issued 5/13/05 granting Appellants' petition for a rehearing by the panel without oral argument and withdrawing the 4/20/05 decision. Decision issued 9/6/05. View petition View complaint View decision View Motion
Chamber Challenges SEC's Rush to Reissue Mutual Fund Corporate Governance Rule
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission
No. 05-1240
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
After having its mutual fund corporate governance rule vacated by the Court in a challenge filed by NCLC (noted below), the SEC hastily re-promulgated the rule without undertaking the rigorous review of costs and alternatives ordered by the District of Columbia Circuit. The mutual fund corporate governance rule requires that the vast majority of mutual funds change their management structure so that the chairman of the board of directors is not affiliated with the firm and that the board be composed of a minimum of 75 percent independent directors. In ordering that the reissued rule be stayed, the District of Columbia Circuit asked the parties to brief, in addition to any other arguments, whether the SEC's rush to reissue the rule violated the court's jurisdiction over the matter.
Petition for Review filed 7/7/05. Motion for Stay filed 8/05/05. Stay granted 8/10/05. Opening brief filed 9/21/05.
View Petition for Review of Final Rule
State-Imposed Ergonomics Standard
Washington Employers Concerned about Regulating Ergonomics, et al. v. Wash. Dept. of Labor & Industry
No. 73020-2
Washington State Supreme Court
This case has been dismissed in light of the business sponsored voter initiative repeal of Washington's ergonomic rule. The legal challenge was one part of a multi-pronged effort to overturn the state rule. In response to the passage of the voter initiative in November 2003, the court determined this case moot on February 6, 2003. This represents a tremendous victory for the business community. The Washington state Department of Labor and Industries is now working with a business-labor advisory committee to address ergonomics through voluntary information and outreach.
Amicus brief filed 12/02. Argument held 5/22/03. Dismissed as moot 2/6/04.
Blacklisting
The Business Roundtable, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, et al. v. United States
No. 1:00CV03088
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
The Chamber and its co-plaintiffs sued the Department of Justice (DOJ) to overturn a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council regulation requiring that agencies must, before awarding every federal contract, determine whether prospective contractors are in "satisfactory compliance with the law" -- federal, foreign, state, or local. The Final Rule placed particular focus on tax, labor and employment, environmental, antitrust, and consumer protection laws. Seeking declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, the co-plaintiffs claimed that the Final Rule was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise contrary to law.
On April 3, the Bush administration reacted to the concerns expressed by the Chamber and other business groups by suspending the Final Rule for 270 days and issuing a proposed rule repealing the Final Rule. In response to the administration's action, the Chamber and its fellow plaintiffs withdrew their complaint without prejudice to refile, if necessary. The Chamber is filing comments in support of the proposed repeal of the rule.
Complaint for declaratory, injunctive, and other relief filed 12/22/00. Notice of voluntary dismissal filed 4/27/01. Dismissal entered 5/7/01.
OSHA Ergonomics Program Standard
Chamber of Commerce of the United States, LPA, Inc., et al. v. U. S. Department of Labor, OSHA
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
NCLC challenged the constitutionality and statutory validity of the Ergonomics Program Standard issued on 11/13/00 by the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). While NCLC was battling in the courtroom, the U.S. Chamber and other business groups launched an unprecedented campaign to overturn this unworkable rule in Congress, which resulted in a resolution under the Congressional Review Act nullifying the Ergonomics Standard. The D.C. Circuit subsequently dismissed all petitions challenging the standard as moot.
Petition for review filed 11/13/00. Petitioner's motion to dismiss as moot filed 4/20/01. Case dismissed 5/3/01.
|
Share This Page