Auto Alliance Int'l, Inc. v. United States, (2005)

Extract

---

Auto Alliance Int'l, Inc. v. United States, (2005)

PAGE: 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE BEFORE: GREGORY W. CARMAN

AUTOALLIANCE

INTERNATIONAL, INC. Plaintiff, v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

[Defendant's Motion to Sever and Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's [Amended] Complaint is granted.]

Dated: August 30, 2005

Baker & Hostetler, LLP (Shelby F. Mitchell and Elizabeth A. Scully), Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff.

Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; Barbara S. Williams, Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office, U.S. Department of Justice; Saul Davis and Aimee Lee, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, U.S. Department of Justice, for Defendant.

Court No. 01-01070

PAGE: 2

OPINION

Carman, Judge: Pursuant to United States Court of International Trade ("CIT") Rule 12(b)1, Defendant, the United States, moves to sever and dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Def.'s Mot. to Sever and Dismiss Count II of Pl.'s Compl. ("Def.'s Mot.") at 1.) Plaintiff asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over Count II of its Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). Defendant claims the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim because, among other reasons, 1) Plaintiff had adequate remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a), but Plaintiff failed to timely file its claim and 2) Plaintiff failed to follow procedural prerequisites of 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). This Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and severs and dismisses Count II of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.

BACKGROUND

The case before this Court already has a long procedural history and the Court has yet to reach the substance of the matter. The facts of this case were discussed in AutoAlliance Int'l, Inc. v. United States ("AAI1"), 26 CIT 1316, 240 F. Supp. 2d 1315 (2002). In 1991, Plaintiff, AutoAllianc...

See the full content of this document

---