The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
A group of retail trade groups, led by the American Apparel and Footwear Association, said that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative failed to adequately respond to comments when imposing its lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs on China. Submitting an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the massive case against the duties, the retail representatives argued that USTR illegally relied on the president's discretion as a response to the comments, violating the Administrative Procedure Act (HMTX Industries, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
The Commerce Department can use a transaction-specific margin as an adverse facts available rate, the government argued in a July 24 reply brief at the Court of International Trade supporting its motion for reconsideration. While exporter Lumber Liquidators argued that the statute only allows a calculated dumping margin and not one based solely on a single sales transaction, the U.S. said this interpretation cuts against the law's plain language, which says that when Commerce uses AFA, it can use any margin from any segment of the proceeding (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00144).
The Court of International Trade in a July 25 order dismissed an antidumping suit brought by exporter Okechamp for failure to file a complaint within the time allotted. Okechamp brought the case to contest the Commerce Department's antidumping duty investigation on preserved mushrooms from the Netherlands. The trade court said the case was tossed for lack or prosectuion (Okechamp v. United States, CIT # 23-00134).
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's defense of its decisions to impose lists 3 and 4A Section 301 tariffs "makes a mockery of a detailed law in which Congress circumscribed what USTR may do and on what basis," four administrative and trade law professors said in an amicus brief. Filing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit July 24, the professors said USTR did not have the statutory authority to impose the retaliatory duties on $320 billion worth of Chinese goods because the statute did not allow retaliation to serve as the basis for the duties, nor did it allow the drastically larger price tag (HMTX Industries, et al. v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1891).
Defendants Gary Cardone and Monica Eaton’s amended motion to dismiss a fraud complaint should be denied, plaintiffs the FTC and state of Florida responded (docket 8:23-cv-00796 ) Thursday in U.S. District Court for Middle Florida in Tampa, saying their claims “easily satisfy the low threshold for defeating a motion to dismiss.”
Hytera Communications filed three pretrial motions Friday in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago (docket 1:20-cr-00688) to dismiss the government's theft of trade secrets criminal indictment against the company on various grounds.
No lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade.
U.S. District Judge Karen Spencer Marston for Eastern Pennsylvania in Philadelphia granted a motion to consolidate related class actions against Onix Group for a March data breach that affected some 320,000 individuals’ personally identifiable information (see 2307130062), said her order Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-02301). Marston directed plaintiffs in the consolidated class action to file an amended complaint in their data breach litigation no later than Sept. 15, with defendants’ response due by Nov. 17. All cases that have been designated to Meyers v. Onix Group will be consolidated with the lead case, Marston said. The court appointed as co-lead counsel Benjamin Johns of Shub & Johns and Gary Klinger of Milberg Coleman. Among plaintiffs’ claims are unfair trade practices and consumer protection law violations, negligence and unjust enrichment.
Importer Amsted Rail Co. voluntarily dismissed its conflict-of-interest suit against the Commerce Department at the Court of International Trade. The case, involving the company's former counsel Daniel Pickard, now partner at Buchanan Ingersoll, was previously stayed pending resolution of a related matter against the International Trade Commission. Amsted earlier this month also dismissed the ITC matter at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after the importer filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal (see 2307050052) (Amsted Rail Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00316).