Comments on: We have progress

By: j.

j. — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:01:17 +0000

The idea of requiring TNNA member suppliers to file continuing guarantees is an interesting idea, but that isn’t any use to a non-US supplier, is it? Non-US manufacturers wouldn’t be able to comply with this requirement, and there may not be an equivalent guarantee in their country.

By: Ken Bridgewater

Ken Bridgewater — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:32:53 +0000

Individual yarn stores do not have to incur the cost of testing the many yarns they sell, if they take advantage of FTC advice for how to comply with the Wool Products Labeling Act.

First, they could ask their individual suppliers to issue a “guaranty of compliance” which should state “We guarantee that the wool products specified herein are not misbranded under the provisions of the Wool Products Labeling Act and rules and regulations thereunder”. The FTC states that a retailer who in good faith relies on such a guarantee will not be found in violation of the law if the goods are subsequently determined to be mislabeled. This is the route that TKW has now taken with its suppliers.

These individual guarantees of compliance for each yarn sold to each retailer, however, place an administrative load on both retailers and their suppliers. Perhaps a better solution is for each supplier to file with the FTC a “continuing guarantee”, which covers all wool products sold by the guarantor. Such continuing guarantees remain in effect until canceled. Perhaps TNNA, our trade organization, should make supplier membership conditional on filing such continuing guarantees?

By: Q

Sat, 27 Sep 2008 05:02:24 +0000

Such motions are rountine in federal court. It’s what lawyers do.

Attacking claims made under federal law ( false advertising and racketeering ) tests whether the claims are deficient. If not made sufficiently, the court usually allows the plaintiff to file an amended complaint to correct problems.

A motion to dismiss points out problems the defendant has with the plaintiff’s complaint. Just because a defendant raises a problem does not mean it is a real problem though. A motion to dismiss is one-sided. Really can not decide whether the motion to dismiss has merits until you read the plaintiff’s response.

Sometimes, motions to dismiss are filed for tactical reasons which are never apparent from the face of the papers. Sometimes the motion to dismiss is filed to just do something and thereby to be allowed to stall answering the complaint ( but this is highly frowned upon in federal court – attorney whoi files the motion must have a good faith basis for doing so but that alone does not mean the attorney will be found to be correct by the court.).

Better to wait and see what the other party has to say … what the court has to say.

It where the phrase ‘going through the motions’ comes from.

By: j.

j. — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:00:35 +0000

Just to add a comment before anyone starts reading deeper meanings into this… as an observer, I don’t see anything deeply revealing about the fact that this motion addresses only three of the causes of action in this lawsuit, and not all of them, or the fact that the pleading is attacked on what you might term technical, rather than substantial, grounds. It is not at all unusual for a defendant to make this kind of motion before filing any kind of defence.

The strategy is logical: if the defendants are right and these three counts alone are what keep this lawsuit alive in this court, there is no point mounting what might be a weaker attack against the other counts; why not bring the motion and at least narrow the issues in the action, if not get the action dismissed altogether?