Inv. Co. Inst. v. U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n

5 Citing briefs

  1. American Meat Institute et al v. United States Department of Agriculture et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed August 9, 2013

    The only question this Court must resolve is whether the Secretary’s decision not to delay the effective date of the rule was a “product of reasoned decisionmaking.” Investment Co. Instit. v. CFTC, 891 F. Supp. 2d 162, 186 (D.D.C. 2013) (internal quotation and citation omitted). As shown below, it was.

  2. Hispanic Affairs Project , et al v. Perez, et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed March 10, 2017

    “This is a ‘deferential standard’ that ‘presumes the validity of agency action.’” Inv. Co. Inst. v. United States CFTC, 891 F. Supp. 2d 162, 186 (D.D.C. 2012), quoting WorldCom, Inc. v. FCC, 238 F.3d 449, 457 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. FCC, 168 F.3d 1344, 1352 (D.C. Cir. 1999)).

  3. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Federal Trade Commission

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed February 7, 2014

    As this Court has recognized, “when an agency action is challenged, the entire case on review is a question of law, and only a question of law.” ICI v. CFTC, 891 F. Supp. 2d 162, 186 (D.D.C. 2013) (as amended), quoting Marshall County Healthcare Auth. v. Shalala, 988 F.3d 1221, 1226 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

  4. Bloomberg L.P. v. United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission

    MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

    Filed May 2, 2013

    Petroleum Ass’n of PROTECTED INFORMATION DELETED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 1:13-cv-00523-BAH Document 13 Filed 05/02/13 Page 36 of 54 29 Am. v. Babbitt, 92 F.3d 1248, 1258 (D.C. Cir. 1996); Transactive Corp. v. United States, 91 F.3d 232, 237 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (“A long line of precedent has established that an agency action is ar- bitrary when the agency offered insufficient reasons for treating similar situations differently.”); cf. Inv. Co. Inst. v. CFTC, 891 F. Supp. 2d 162, 196-97 (D.D.C. 2012), as amended (Jan. 2, 2013) (“Derivatives are flexible products that can be designed to achieve almost any financial purpose.”).

  5. Safari Club International et al v. Jewell et al

    REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed June 5, 2014

    v. U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, business association plaintiffs had standing because they represented companies whose trading activity was regulated by the Commission after it eliminated regulatory exclusions. 891 F. Supp. 2d 162, 166-68, 185 (D.D.C. 2012), aff’d, 720 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2013); see also Idaho Power Co. v. FERC, 312 F.3d 454, 460 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (standing for a power company that was subject to a FERC order); N.Y. Pub. Interest Research Grp.