For those of you unfamiliar with this case, check out my guest post that appeared on May It Please The Court just after Judge St. Eve ruled last year on Craigslist's motion for judgment on the pleadings. After the court denied plaintiff's subsequent motion to reconsider, plaintiff appealed, and for the last six months the Seventh Circuit has suspended briefing, presumably to allow for a negotiated resolution.
Apparently a quick settlement isn't in the cards. Late last week the Court of Appeals jump-started the case by issuing a briefing schedule. Appellant Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc.'s ("CLC") brief is due October 9, Appellee Craigslist's brief is due November 20, and CLC's reply brief is due December 7, 2007.
It will be interesting to see how the the Ninth Circuit's Roommate.com decision figures in to the parties' briefs.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
UPDATE: U.S.A. v. National Association of Realtors
District Judge Filip held a status hearing this morning in US v. NAR.
Discovery closes in a few months (November 21), and NAR's counsel stated that his client would "quite likely" be filing a motion for summary judgment thereafter. The court directed that such motion should be filed no later than January 14, 2008. The court set response and reply deadlines, and anticipated ruling on such motion (if filed) around April 25, 2008.
The parties expect a four week bench (non-jury) trial, and Judge Filip estimated that the trial would commence in early June 2008 (3 full days, one partial day, per week). Of course if NAR does file a motion for summary judgment, and the court rules in its favor, a trial would not be necessary.
A status hearing was scheduled for November 28, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Filip.
Discovery closes in a few months (November 21), and NAR's counsel stated that his client would "quite likely" be filing a motion for summary judgment thereafter. The court directed that such motion should be filed no later than January 14, 2008. The court set response and reply deadlines, and anticipated ruling on such motion (if filed) around April 25, 2008.
The parties expect a four week bench (non-jury) trial, and Judge Filip estimated that the trial would commence in early June 2008 (3 full days, one partial day, per week). Of course if NAR does file a motion for summary judgment, and the court rules in its favor, a trial would not be necessary.
A status hearing was scheduled for November 28, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Filip.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Federal judge enters preliminary injunction against KREC Commissioners, rules certain state laws unconstitutional
I've written about River Oaks Management v. Kentucky Real Estate Commission on several occasions (most recently here), and about an hour ago an anonymous commenter to an earlier post advised me that the court had ruled on several pending motions. Whoever you are, thank you! Here is a link to today's Order and accompanying Opinion.
As you can see, Judge Simpson granted plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, thereby prohibiting KREC's Executive Director and Commissioners from (1) enforcing the prohibition against splitting fees with or compensating a real estate broker licensed in another state for the interstate brokerage of Kentucky real estate, and (2) enforcing the prohibition against aiding and abetting a real estate broker licensed in another state in the interstate brokerage of Kentucky real estate.
The court also ruled that a statutory provision at issue and a related regulation were unconstitutional. To learn more, click on the "Opinion" link, above.
As you can see, Judge Simpson granted plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, thereby prohibiting KREC's Executive Director and Commissioners from (1) enforcing the prohibition against splitting fees with or compensating a real estate broker licensed in another state for the interstate brokerage of Kentucky real estate, and (2) enforcing the prohibition against aiding and abetting a real estate broker licensed in another state in the interstate brokerage of Kentucky real estate.
The court also ruled that a statutory provision at issue and a related regulation were unconstitutional. To learn more, click on the "Opinion" link, above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)