FDA Sides With US!

[lady9ball]

Steve, I think NOW is the time to think about a distribution network, since from what I understand, your shipments can no longer be confiscated. I would LOVE to be at the top of the list as these things would sell like crazy around here. If I had had extra supplies, I would have sold tons by now and that's just from being spotted vaping in bars on occassion.

I have thought about going directly to the source, but honestly I don't want to sell anything but the VK.

I'm very excited about this news - I think Judge Leon and Arnie S have set precedence that will be hard to ignore in future cases. I am less worried about the possibility of taxation than I am about having to go back to analogs. I won't do it.. I won't!

 

[HzG8rGrl]

DaShiVa's analysis is essentially correct but I think nonlawyers would appreciate a clarification of the procedural standing of the case [it ain't over, fellas.] This ruling comes on a motion for a preliminary injunction, which is a pre-trial motion asking the judge to make a "preliminary" ruling PRIOR to the actual trial because extraordinary harm could result to the parties by waiting until a trial date. Here, the judge has heard the motion arguments, taken briefs from the parties and interpreted the evidence in light of the four factors important to preliminary injunctions. On two of these factors, the likelihood of prevailing at trial and whether the plaintiff would be irreparably harmed in the event an injunction were not issued, the judge has ruled that the evidence so strongly favors the plaintiffs that an injunction should issue. The judge thought the evidence was less compelling on the other two factos. This means the FDA is enjoined by the court from stopping shipments of these materials into the US. No money damages lie against the FDA......that's one reason why the harm to plaintiffs is irreparable. This injunction will be in force until the trail. I suppose that the FDA could attempt an interlocutory appeal of the preliminary order in a higher court, but that kind of procedure is not usually used in this kind of case. Next, there will be a wider discovery period for evidence, and ultimately a trial.
From: My other half-Lord Help ME

 

[keyzygirl]

Its still a victory and Im happy for Steve and all of us!!

 

[DaShiVa]

DaShiVa's analysis is essentially correct but I think nonlawyers would appreciate a clarification of the procedural standing of the case [it ain't over, fellas.] This ruling comes on a motion for a preliminary injunction, which is a pre-trial motion asking the judge to make a "preliminary" ruling PRIOR to the actual trial because extraordinary harm could result to the parties by waiting until a trial date. Here, the judge has heard the motion arguments, taken briefs from the parties and interpreted the evidence in light of the four factors important to preliminary injunctions. On two of these factors, the likelihood of prevailing at trial and whether the plaintiff would be irreparably harmed in the event an injunction were not issued, the judge has ruled that the evidence so strongly favors the plaintiffs that an injunction should issue. The judge thought the evidence was less compelling on the other two factos. This means the FDA is enjoined by the court from stopping shipments of these materials into the US. No money damages lie against the FDA......that's one reason why the harm to plaintiffs is irreparable. This injunction will be in force until the trail. I suppose that the FDA could attempt an interlocutory appeal of the preliminary order in a higher court, but that kind of procedure is not usually used in this kind of case. Next, there will be a wider discovery period for evidence, and ultimately a trial.
From: My other half-Lord Help ME

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was trying to say, but without as many legal words

As an aside, I can't find it now as the forums are lagging hard for me, but there was something about the FDA already having an appeal allowed to go assuming this decision as it stands, which I believe means they will be appealing it anyway, but in the ruling the Judge put out, be basically hit all the points their appeal would be based on, making it unlikely they'll bother going through with it as they had planned.

 

[DaShiVa]

Its still a victory and Im happy for Steve and all of us!!

Oh, it's definitely a victory. While not the final decision, it's basically a Federal Judge saying "I think you're going to lose this one FDA, so until you do lose it, we're going to act like you have lost"
So the longer before the actual trial the better, because there is a small chance the FDA wins, and meanwhile it's just like they lost, but better in that they aren't going to be doing any regulating, which even if they lose, they will then proceed to do. (Like they regulate cigarettes now)

 

[impostor71]

FDA could attempt an interlocutory appeal of the preliminary order

what?

But yay for us, for now...

 

[Pawpaw]

If I understood this entire conversation, it boiled down to this:

Judge Leon told the FDA to ".... out" until the trial is over.

Is that correct? If so, that buys us 5 - 10 years! Unless the FDA does the interlocutory whachamacallit.

 

[HzG8rGrl]

Interlocutory appeal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I said-HELP ME 8-o

what?

But yay for us, for now...

 

[katkin]

If I understood this entire conversation, it boiled down to this:

Judge Leon told the FDA to ".... out" until the trial is over.

Is that correct? If so, that buys us 5 - 10 years! Unless the FDA does the interlocutory whachamacallit.

That's a pretty good English translation of it. I'm very happy to hear the ruling. I don't think an "interlocutory appeal of the preliminary order" is too likely. I can't think of any reason they could use that wouldn't get laughed out of court.

 

[DaShiVa]

If I understood this entire conversation, it boiled down to this:

Judge Leon told the FDA to ".... out" until the trial is over.

Is that correct? If so, that buys us 5 - 10 years! Unless the FDA does the interlocutory whachamacallit.

Best summary yet.

With the addition that if the FDA does do a whachamacallit, the Judge told them he thinks they'd lose. And regardless, if they do lose, then it's right back with them having to stay 'butted out'.
As for the timeframe, I don't know, but 5-10 years should be plenty of time for e-cigs to go mainstream, even with the trial hanging over the heads.
Of course, it'd be best if the full trial was over and we'd won, from a publicity standpoint, but I'm more than happy with things as they are right now.

 

[Adrenalynn]

Putting on my business hat for a moment - any business seeking capital, private or public, would need a blue-sky statement. In that blue-sky you have to disclose any known pending lawsuits or legislation. This, in theory, could take a lot of the sting out of the blue-sky disclosure, which could probably make more capital available.

With the potential size of the industry, there should be an awful lot of private funding available.

 

[Kimmy]

even though the road ahead is still a long one, we should all celebrate this. 1 for us, -1 for the FDA! I am so happy!

 

[impostor71]

Putting on my business hat for a moment - any business seeking capital, private or public, would need a blue-sky statement. In that blue-sky you have to disclose any known pending lawsuits or legislation. This, in theory, could take a lot of the sting out of the blue-sky disclosure, which could probably make more capital available..

what?

 

[leaford]

Oh happy day!!!

What great news to wake up to!!

And as a bonus, it's my Mom's birthday, and she got a new computer from her husband, so I was able to share the news with her in a video call!

 

[DaShiVa]

Oh happy day!!!

What great news to wake up to!!

And as a bonus, it's my Mom's birthday, and she got a new computer from her husband, so I was able to share the news with her in a video call!

Heh, it's my birthday on Saturday, so this was timed nicely

 

[Adrenalynn]

what?

Money good.

Not money bad.

 

[terrymr]

I don't believe a regulatory agency has the authority to appeal by itself, they would have to convince the AG that it is worth appealing.

 

[plantlvr]

This is great news! I do remember reading somewhere in the forums about the reason they banned ecigs in Hong Kong. The way I remember it is so many people switched from cigs that the gov was losing so much tax revenue, they had to ban ecigs! Scary what gov will do for their money!

 

[Pawpaw]

IMO, plantlvr's signature line says it all.

 

[blondeambition3]

(sigh of relief .... for now)