William Lindsay Osteen jr

This case involved agricultural employers and associations challenging the Department of Labor's May 2009 rule that suspended the 2008 H-2A visa regulations for temporary foreign agricultural workers and reinstated the prior 1987 rules for nine months. The plaintiffs argued that the DOL violated the Administrative Procedure Act by limiting the scope of public comments during the rulemaking process and failing to consider substantive issues. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, preventing the Substitution Rule from taking effect. The court reasoned that reinstating the older regulations constituted rulemaking under the APA, which required full compliance with notice-and-comment procedures, and that the restricted comment period prejudiced the plaintiffs by preventing meaningful input on the merits of the rules.

immigrationlabor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a furniture manufacturer, Universal, suing a competitor, Collezione, for copying its furniture designs. After a prior bench trial found Collezione liable for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, false designation and reverse passing off under the Lanham Act, and unfair trade practices under North Carolina law, the court held a separate hearing to determine damages. The court calculated damages based on Collezione's gross profits from sales of the infringing items during the relevant period, drawing from trial evidence such as sales records and exhibits, while rejecting the defendant's unverified or untimely cost deductions and spreadsheets that did not align with the trial record. It applied Rule 63 to proceed on the existing record without new testimony and awarded damages accordingly, incorporating prior findings and injunctions.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure