ITC, Petitioner Oppose Joining Two Cases Over Rail Couplers Injury Finding

Parties on the defendants’ side in two cases Feb. 21 opposed a motion of joinder in separate briefs, saying that, although both were litigating claims against an affirmative International Trade Commission injury determination in antidumping and countervailing duty investigations on Mexican and Chinese rail couplers, their cases raise “unique” legal issues with little crossover (Amsted Rail Ind. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00268; Wabtec Corp. v. U.S., CIT # 23-00157).

Attorneys for the International Trade Commission, who filed their brief in the Mexican rail couplers case facing plaintiff Amsted Rail, said that, of the counts raised in the Chinese case, “almost half do not overlap with claims raised by Amsted.” Joining the cases would not promote judicial efficiency; just the opposite, it said.

“Consolidation … would unnecessarily open up all of the issues to briefing by every party, complicate disposition of the cases, and potentially lead to an unwieldy or chaotic proceeding,” the ITC said.

McConway -- part of the Coalition of Freight Coupler Producers, which has intervened as defendants in both cases – made a similar argument in its own brief for the Chinese case facing consolidated plaintiffs Wabtec and Strato, saying that there were “significant differences” in the legal bases of the complaints.

It also argued that Wabtec and Strato “would not have standing to pursue the alleged conflict of interest claims” raised in Amsted’s case, “as those claims allegedly arise out of Amsted’s membership in the petitioning coalition in FRC I, and [Wabtec and Strato] were not involved in that coalition.”

Amsted Rail argues an unlawful conflict of interest occurred when one of its former lawyers in a pair of AD/CVD investigations joined a new firm that subsequently filed the AD petition that started another antidumping duty injury investigation (see 2312150065). Wabtec and Strato, meanwhile, claim that the ITC launched its second investigation too soon after the previous one reached a negative determination in regard to their products (see 2309130033).

The Court of International Trade has previously ruled against joining some cases even when they involve “similarly situated facts and administrative records,” McConway said.

“In Federal-Mogul, there were eleven claims in a challenged antidumping case and nine claims in a companion countervailing duty case, with only one issue considered to overlap between the two cases,” it said. “In that case, the Court denied consolidation.”