Nonetheless, the district court preliminarily enjoined the Commission from enforcing the Non-Compete Rule against plaintiff.

Nonetheless, the district court held, relying on the major-questions doctrine, that Section 6(g) likely did not “grant the FTC the authority to issue this particular rule.” Dkt. No. 59, at 17.

Nonetheless, the district court relied on the major-questions doctrine to conclude that the Commission was likely not empowered to issue the Non-Compete Rule.

Dear Ms. Goodnature, We have docketed the appeal as shown above, and ask you to use the case number above in future inquiries.

Counsel must be approved for electronic filing and must be listed in the case as attorney of record before access will be authorized.

Sealed documents, except for the presentence investigation report in criminal appeals, will not be included in the EROA.

cc: Mr. Charles William Fillmore Mr. Sean Janda Ms. Elizabeth Ashley Kiernan Mr. Andrew G. I. Kilberg Mr. Judson O. Littleton Ms. Karen S. Mitchell Robert Lee Sayles Mr. Eugene Scalia Mr. Amir Cameron Tayrani Mr. Jeffrey B.

Ryan, L.L.C., Plaintiff - Appellee Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America; Business Roundtable; Texas Association of Business; Longview Chamber of Commerce, Intervenor Plaintiffs - Appellees

Plaintiff-Appellee Properties of the Villages, Inc. (“POV”), respectfully moves this Court to hold this case in abeyance pending the disposition of the Fifth Circuit appeal of Defendant-Appellant Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) in Ryan, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, the outcome of which may render this appeal moot or otherwise obviate the need for this appeal.1 This case involves statutory and constitutional challenges to the Commission’s Non-Compete Rule, which bans nearly all existing and future non- compete agreements.

which they agree not to sell homes within The Villages community for 24 months after they depart.2 Recognizing that the Non-Compete Rule would effectively invalidate these contracts and upend its unique business model, POV sued the Commission in the Middle District of Florida and sought a preliminary injunction.

In particular, courts often hold proceedings in abeyance “to await a federal appellate decision that is likely to have a substantial or controlling effect on the claims and issues in the stayed case.” Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt.

Just two weeks ago, the Commission requested that the Southern District of Ohio adjourn an upcoming hearing on a preliminary injunction motion in a case involving a pending, related proceeding in a different circuit.

The Commission asserted that the outcome of a parallel proceeding in the District of Oregon “could be effectively dispositive,” and it contended that “[t]here is thus no reason to expend judicial and party resources adjudicating [the] motion at this time.” Id. at 2, 6.