In Which Parler (A Far Right Hate Social Media Site) Bumbles Its Way Into Losing A Laughable "Antitrust" Suit In Seattle, Against The Amazon Web Services Unit...

It is fairly preposterous on its face (but here is the ludicrous complaint, just the same). It will be bounced -- and likely sooner rather than later -- right out of the federal District Courts in Seattle.

Parler's sole practitioner lawyer seems to think it is a Sherman Act violation to decline to host dangerous, seditious content, even where (as here) Amazon's web services unit makes very clear that the service is a privilege not a right, and AWS may suspend it for rules violations, and may terminate the server hosting, after the suspension period (30 days) passes. That is where this is headed. But here is the able USDC Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein's order, and a bit tonight. Parler didn't serve AWS in a timely fashion, and given the request for a one sided TRO, this one will likely be summarily dumped out of court soon.

. . .As noted above, Defendant AWS has apparently not been served either with the Complaint or the instant motion. Furthermore, Parler’s attorney has not “certifie[d] in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” The Western District of Washington Local Rules are exceedingly clear: “Motions for temporary restraining orders without notice to and an opportunity to be heard by the adverse party are disfavored and will rarely be granted.” LCR 65(b)(1). In the absence of the certification outlined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B), Parler has the obligation to “serve all motion papers on the opposing party before or contemporaneously with the filing of the motion and include a certificate of service with the motion.” Id.

Therefore, the Court hereby orders Parler to “serve all motion papers,” including the Complaint, on AWS by no later than 5:00 p.m. PST today, January 11, 2021. AWS shall respond to the Motion for TRO no later than 5:00 p.m. PST, January 12, 2021. Parler may file any reply no later than 12:00 noon PST, January 13, 2021. The parties shall follow all rules for briefing, including page limits, set out in the Local Rules. . . .

[Ed. Note: Tonight, AWS responded, as follows.] . . .As required by Local Civil Rule 65(b)(5), Defendant Amazon Web Services, Inc. (“AWS”) provides notice that it intends to oppose Plaintiff Parler LLC’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, which asks for an order “enjoining the defendant from suspending Parler’s account with AWS or terminating the Agreement.” Dkt. 2 at 2. Local Civil Rule 65(b) permits AWS to file a response within 48 hours of service of the Motion. AWS has not been served, and Parler’s account was terminated the day before it filed its Motion. AWS intends to respond to the Motion no later than 9 p.m. on January 12, 2021. . . .

Why on Earth are all these jokers so. . . terribly incompetent? Wait. Wait. Don't answer that. Grinning. . . .

नमस्ते