FDA response to lawsuits.

Discussion in 'FDA Regulations' started by skoony, Aug 18, 2016.

Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. skoony

    skoony Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jul 31, 2013
    saint paul,mn,usa
    LaraC, AYDIN Y and Lessifer like this.
  2. ImThatGuy

    ImThatGuy Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Sep 1, 2012
    California
    [PROPOSED] ORDER Upon consideration of Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment are DENIED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Defendants, and against Plaintiffs, on all claims raised in the complaints.
     
  3. house mouse

    house mouse Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Oct 24, 2010
    BFE
    I'm just incredulous over the fact that on the very first page they instruct the court not to bother looking through the scientific evidence because they (the FDA) are the experts.
     
    LaraC, nomore stinkies, KentA and 5 others like this.
  4. Semiretired

    Semiretired Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Sep 24, 2011
    Middle Georgia
    I got chuckles after reading only 10 pages. They are sticking to their guns about how dangerous and bad ecigs are and not admitting/recognizing any of the positive side...
     
  5. Semiretired

    Semiretired Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Sep 24, 2011
    Middle Georgia
    They did acknowledge that cigs are the most dangerous product ever brought to market, but don't mention why they are allowing them to stay on the market... :rolleyes:o_O:confused:
     
    nomore stinkies, KentA, ASEK and 6 others like this.
  6. Vandal

    Vandal Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Oct 21, 2009
    NoVA, USA
    Okay, I don't understand what that means. And has the judge signed off on it? If not, any idea when that might happen?
     
    Sugar_and_Spice likes this.
  7. rosesense

    rosesense ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 1, 2010
    western WA
    That is what the FDA is asking the court/judge to do and I don't know when we can expect a response.
     
  8. SeniorBoy

    SeniorBoy VapeFight.com Founder Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    May 21, 2013
    Las Vegas, NV
    I'm not surprised at this "answer" from the FDA. It's typical legal beagle stuff which happens in nearly all cases like this. The JUDGE makes the call and I would expect/guess that to happen in about one or two months.

    Please note all the attorneys involved (SEVEN !!!!) for the FDA. Our tax dollars at work. /sigh
     
    LaraC, KentA, nicnik and 2 others like this.
  9. rosesense

    rosesense ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 1, 2010
    western WA
    Those attorneys get paid whether they do anything or not. At least they had to do some work to write this garbage instead of chatting with co-workers all day.
     
    dcdozer, Sugar_and_Spice, DC2 and 6 others like this.
  10. englishmick

    englishmick Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Sep 25, 2014
    Naptown, Indiana
    The section on Judicial Deference seems to put a high bar in front of any lawsuit.

    Based on this below, if the FDA looks at the evidence and comes to a conclusion, it seems like the Court is legally obliged to accept that conclusion. There are some exceptions under "arbitrary and capricious", but they look like they might be pretty hard to meet. I don't know how common it is for courts look past the Judicial Deference standard. If the plaintiffs are allowed to dispute the FDA's interpretation of research, introduce contrary research, and argue that the FDA cherry picked their sources of information, etc, maybe they have a shot. Maybe it just depends on the Judge.

    # # #

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), an agency’s decision must be upheld unless arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Under this deferential standard, the agency’s decision is presumed valid, and the Court considers only whether it “was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971). An agency decision may be deemed arbitrary and capricious only in circumstances where the agency “has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. ...’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). The Court may not “substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Id.

    This deference is heightened even further in cases like this one involving scientific or technical decisions. “We will give an extreme degree of deference to the agency when it is evaluating scientific data within its technical expertise,” West Virginia v. EPA, 362 F.3d 861, 871 (D.C. Cir. 2004), for “we cannot decide . . . whether technical evidence beyond our ken supports the proposition it is asserted to support,” Simpson v. Young, 854 F.2d 1429, 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “When examining this kind of scientific determination . . . a reviewing court must generally be at its most deferential.” Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 103 (1983). Indeed, “in the face of conflicting evidence at the frontiers of science, courts’ deference to expert determinations should be at its greatest.” Cellular Phone Task Force v. FCC, 205 F.2d 82, 90 (2d Cir. 2000).
     
    LaraC, KentA, Sugar_and_Spice and 2 others like this.
  11. Train2

    Train2 ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    May 11, 2013
    CA, USA
    CHECK: has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider,
    CHECK: entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem,
    CHECK: offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency,
    CHECK: or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.

    They qualify on all counts.
    If only the judge could both grant the plaintiffs request AND add a lashing or something.



     
    LaraC, Whitewolf2014, KentA and 9 others like this.
  12. Train2

    Train2 ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    May 11, 2013
    CA, USA
    Their logic is so friggin twisted.

    You can't complain about nicotine-free liquid being a tobacco product because we didn't say ALL nicotine-free liquid was a tobacco product. Yours might not be, so you can't complain. Yet. We only said nicotine-free liquid MIGHT be a tobacco product, even if it's not made from tobacco, if we think it might be used to mix with nicotine. And we haven't decided yet, we'll do that ON A WHIM, case-by-case, later - using our obvious expertise in such things to decide. Maybe then you can complain about it, but by then, you won't have enough money for another lawsuit, so good luck.
     
    LaraC, nomore stinkies, Verb and 16 others like this.
  13. Robino1

    Robino1 ECF Moderator Senior Moderator Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Yet they state
    The above found here: Nicotine Replacement Therapy Labels May Change

    They seriously cannot have it both ways!!! Holy :censored: they are blithering idiots!
     
    LaraC, Bea-FL, nicnik and 23 others like this.
  14. sofarsogood

    sofarsogood Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Oct 12, 2014
    The family tobacco act, or whatever it is called, was intended to protect existing tobacco products from competition including from lower risk alternatives. That ends up protecting taxes and the master settlement agreement money while it harms the public's health.

    I'm avoiding the term "public health" because that refers to a bunch of people I don't trust or respect. From now on it's the "public's health" so I don't have to acknowledge those other people.
     
    oldude 61, Endor, pennysmalls and 3 others like this.
  15. mostlyclassics

    mostlyclassics Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    But remember, Robino1, the FDA is the hammer and vaping is the nails.

    Welcome to the northernmost province of Nicaragua or the westernmost province of Turkey. Take your pick.
     
  16. Racehorse

    Racehorse ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jul 12, 2012
    USA midwest
    YT posted the PDF here yesterday:
    https://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/f...ount-against-fda-regs-on-e-cigarettes.753467/

    Actually, I'm going to disagree with you here. Usually, when I read a lawsuit it is refreshingly logical, as opposed to emotional. I've sat thru many court trials and have never found the law and it's proceedings to be "illogical". I think that is the beauty of the law.

    While I may not LIKE the outcome, the requirement of legal proceedings is the ability to use logic. You don't get to say things like "but water can be dangerous too!" and stuff like that. Basically, as I briefly read the pdf it just seems like they are sticking with Soterra and the job Congress gave the FDA to regulate stuff..... both of which already have been legally established. The long history of the tobacco industry of lying is not something the FDA is willing to go thru again and either is anyone else, so the burden of proving anything after BT debacle just naturally became more difficult.

    Burden of proof and all that, it sounded to me that the arguments/reasonings surrounding non nicotine products used in conjunction with vaping haven't been well explained (yet) by the defendants at least not in a compelling way. There is more work to do, and yes, it does require a long string of go-arounds. That is always true when you are trying to prove an unjustified regulatory burden.

    As with any lawsuit, it's not one thing, it's a number of things that get to be examined and decided on.

    I doubt any defendants in the lawsuit thought it was going to be lickety-split. Now they have more to go on, more insight about how the FDA is seeing things, and how we should proceed from there.

    It's a PROCESS.

    I remember when big land development corporations would put their bulldozers atop all those nice sand dunes (nature's protection of the land beyond the sea) and started levelling them to build billion dollar condo projects. The local municpalities with their bare-bones legal staff would be trying to stop the bulldozers from raping the land while the development corps would bring their armies of Philadelphia lawyers........of course the municipalities ran out of resources and money and now we have no sand dunes to speak of.

    Anybody bringing a lawsuit knows this ahead of time........i.e. that it will be expensive and time-consuming.

    More legal battles ahead. Hopefully all the vendors are kicking in some monies to the various defendants? The same problems exist in horse racing as vaping industry..........no centralization, instead each racing venue and each state in the US has their own little commissions and sets of rules.........I can only say that NOTHING has gotten accomplished that way and I've been watching it for 20 years.

    That's why I said 4 years ago that the vaping industry needed to band together under ONE large trade organization.

    That never happened. :( That would have gone a long way toward resource sharing IMHO.
     
  17. classwife

    classwife Admin
    Asst Classifieds Mgr
    Ask The Vets Mgr
    Admin Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    And "people" in 'control' are actually buying this :censored: ?!?!

    This is the sorriest piece of :censored: I have seen yet.
     
    randyith, Dieseler, jwbnyc and 2 others like this.
  18. Racehorse

    Racehorse ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jul 12, 2012
    USA midwest
    I wonder why the defendants didn't bring this up in their preparations?

    At any rate, knowing HOW this was accomplished is instructive.

    Something to study for next course of arguments....
     
  19. zoiDman

    zoiDman My -0^10 = Nothing at All* ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Apr 16, 2010
    So-Cal
    Fear Not Roino1.

    I'm sure the FDA has a CDC Study that shows that Nicotine IS the most Addictive Substances known to Man when it is used in an Unregulated and Untaxed product that BT or BP did not produce.
     
  20. Buckeyevapen

    Buckeyevapen Super Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 22, 2016
    All I want to hear from the judge is, "Plantiffs request is granted, we will reconvene for opening arguments on..."
     
    B2L, Sugar_and_Spice, skoony and 2 others like this.

Share This Page