Cases

ORDER GRANTING THE FTC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) brings this action against Defen*696dant Denny Lake for violations of the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (“MARS”) Rule, 12 C.F.R. § 1015.6, and the Telemarketing Serv

DECISION AND ORDER WILLIAM M. SKRETNY, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the New York State Attorney General, commenced this action under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 ' U.S.C. § 53(b) *651(“FTCA”); Section 814 of the Fair Debt Collection Pra

515 F.3d 447 (2008) CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY, N.V., a foreign corporation, and Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent. No. 05-60192. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. January 25, 2008. *448 *449

REYNA, Circuit Judge. The International Trade Commission entered a limited exclusion order against Ar-ista Networks, Inc. based on its final determination that Arista infringed three of Cisco Systems, Inc.’s patents. The Commission also determined that Arista did not infringe two other Cisco patents. The exclusion order excluded entry into the United St

32 F.Supp.2d 1004 (1998) FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Jacqueline SABAL, a.k.a. Jacqueline Sable, Defendant. No. 98 C 170. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. July 23, 1998. *1005 Theresa M. McGrew, Russell W. Damtoft, Assistant Regional Director, Chicago, IL, Federal Trade Commission, Chicago

321 F.Supp.2d 16 (2004) FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL CITY MORTGAGE CORP., et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 98-237GK. United States District Court, District of Columbia. May 6, 2004. *17 Amanda Quester, Bradley H. Blower, Sandra Mitchell Wilmore, Alain Herbert Sheer, Federal Trade Commission, Laura D. Berger, Laur

MEMORANDUM OPINION Re: Settlement THOMAS F. HOGAN, Chief Judge. Pending before the Court are several motions for final approval of various settlement agreements reached in this MDL action. The Federal Trade Commission and all fifty states and the District of Columbia seek final approval of their settlement agreements with the defendants, which this Court preliminarily approved on April 27, 2001

141 F.Supp.2d 62 (2001) TRANS UNION LLC, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Defendant. No. CIV.A. 00-2834(ESH). United States District Court, District of Columbia. April 9, 2001. *63 *64 *65 *66 Mary Elizabeth Gatel

DENNIS, Circuit Judge: The petition for panel rehearing is GRANTED. The prior opinion, Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., N.V. v. FTC, 515 F.3d *420447 (5th Cir.2008), is WITHDRAWN, and the following opinion is substituted: Chicago Bridge and Iron Company, a Dutch corporation, and its United States subsidiary, Chicago Bridge and Iron Company, (

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 20-3590 (JEB) META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION How times have changed. Not so long ago, a company called Facebook so dominated the provision of personal social-networking services that a

276 F.Supp.2d 110 (2003) NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Defendant. American Bar Association, Plaintiff, v. Federal Trade Commission, Defendant. Civil Action Nos. 02-810 (RBW), 02-1883(RBW). United States District Court, District of Columbia. August 11, 2003. *111 Warren L. Denn

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TATEL. TATEL, Circuit Judge: After concluding that unusually high prices in New York electricity markets resulted from a structural flaw in those markets, the operator of the state’s power transmission system invoked its authority to lower the prices retroactively. A company that lost money because of these price reductions filed a complaint with the Federal En

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER SPATT, District Judge. This case arises from the individual and corporate defendants’ business of marketing and selling a business opportunity, which consisted of processing and submitting claims on behalf of doctors and dentists to insurance companies for payment. The plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC” or the “Commission”) initiated this action in November 1996

545 F.3d 1340 (2008) KYOCERA WIRELESS CORPORATION, Appellant, and Qualcomm Incorporated, Appellant, and Motorola, Inc., Appellant, and Samsung Electronics Corporation, Ltd., Appellant, and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., Appellant, and Sanyo Fisher Co., Appellant, and T-Mobile USA, Inc., Appellant, and AT & T Mobility, LLC (formerly known as Cingular Wireless, LLC), Appellant, and Sprint Nextel Corporation, App

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge: Regional Transmission Organizations are non-profit entities that oversee the transmission of electricity from generators to utilities. Under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act and FERC’s regulations, Regional Transmission Organizations file their proposed rate schemes with FERC. 16 U.S.C. § 824d(c); 18 C.F.R. § 35.34(j)(l)(iii). Section 205 allows FERC

OAKES, Circuit Judge: On a difficult question of statutory interpretation, seldom does a court of appeals have the benefit, as we do in this case, of guidance from two cogent, well-reasoned opinions going in opposite directions. The difficulty of the question is revealed not only in the direct conflict between these two decisions, but also in the three-to-two decision of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”), the

771 F.2d 32 54 USLW 2130, 1985-2 Trade Cases 66,747 Joseph I. LIEBERMAN, Attorney General, State of Connecticut,Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, State ofMinnesota, Leroy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General,Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dennis J. Roberts II, AttorneyGeneral, State of Rhode Island, Appellees,v.FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellant. No. 1036, Docket 85-

598 F.Supp. 669 (1984) Joseph I. LIEBERMAN, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, et al. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. Civ. No. H-84-716. United States District Court, D. Connecticut. November 26, 1984. *670 Robert M. Langer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Hartford, Conn., Stephen P. Kilgriff, Atty. Gen., and Hubert H. Humphrey, III, A

BERZON, Circuit Judge. As in Public Utility District No. 1 v. FERC (“PUD ”), Nos. 03-72511, et al. (9th Cir. Dec. _, 2006), a related case also decided today, the petitioners — here, the California Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”) and the California Electric Oversight Board (“CEOB”) (collectively, “Public Utilities Commission”) — challenge the statutory vali

AMENDED OPINION THOMAS, Circuit Judge. This case comes to us on petitions for review of a series of orders issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) relating to the energy crisis that occurred in California in 2000 and 2001. Nearly 200 petitions for review of the various FERC orders have been filed in our Court. We consolidated these peti