8 Dozen Section 301 Plaintiffs Oppose DOJ Case Management Motion

DOJ broke the rules of the U.S. Court of International Trade when it filed its motion for case management procedures (see 2009240040) in the original Section 301 litigation docket and not those of the other complaints, argued Husch Blackwell in court papers (in Pacer) Friday. The firm sued (in Pacer) on behalf of 3A Composites USA and more than seven dozen other importers Sept. 18 and filed a second complaint (in Pacer) for Flexfab Horizons International and five other plaintiffs Sept. 21. Both complaints, like the more than 3,400 others, seek to vacate the Lists 3 and 4A tariffs and get the duties refunded. DOJ’s motion gave no explanation why it “believes it needs to rush to put the procedures it suggests in place, or why its failure to follow the Court’s rules is justified,” said Husch Blackwell. Failure to serve the motion on lawyers other than Akin Gump, representing HMTX Industries in the original complaint, should be grounds for denial, it said. The firm's clients agree a conference should be convened to “address the procedural issues” in the many cases, it said. But designation of a test case “will depend upon the nature of the complaints that have been filed, and whether all complaints are virtually identical or are different in material respects,” it said. “DOJ makes no claim that it knows how similar or dissimilar the complaints are and provides no analysis for the conclusion that they should be treated alike.” DOJ didn't respond to questions.