United States v. Horizon Prods. Int'l, Inc., Slip Op. 15–96.

Decision Date26 August 2015
Docket NumberSlip Op. 15–96.,Court No. 14–00104.
PartiesUNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. HORIZON PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. Court of International Trade

Daniel B. Volk, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice of Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff United States. On the brief with him were Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Claudia Burke, Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Claire J. Lemme, Attorney, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel for U.S. Customs and Border Protection of Miami, FL.

Peter S. Herrick, Peter S. Herrick, P.A. of St. Petersburg, FL, for Defendant Horizon Products International, Inc.

OPINION

GORDON, Judge:

Recently this Court granted Plaintiff United States (“the Government”) partial summary judgment with respect to unpaid duties resulting from the misclassification of imports of various types of plywood by Defendant Horizon Products International, Inc. (Horizon). United States v. Horizon Prods. Int'l, Inc., 39 CIT ––––, 82 F.Supp.3d 1350 (2015). Additionally, the court awarded the Government equitable prejudgment interest on those unpaid duties. Id. Lastly the court denied the Government summary judgment on its claim for a civil penalty based on negligence, determining that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding (1) whether Horizon exercised reasonable care in making its entries and (2) the amount of any penalty owed because of Horizon's alleged negligent misclassification of the imported plywood. Id. In view of those decisions, the question is whether the court should enter a partial judgment pursuant to USCIT Rule 54(b) as to the unpaid duties and the award of equitable pre-judgment interest. For the reasons set forth below, the court will enter a Rule 54(b) partial judgment.

Rule 54(b) provides in part that

[w]hen an action presents more than one claim for relief whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.

USCIT R. 54(b).

Rule 54(b) requires finality—“an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.” Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 436, 76 S.Ct. 895, 100 L.Ed. 1297 (1956). Additionally, in evaluating whether there is no just reason for delay, the court examines whether the concern for avoiding piecemeal litigation is outweighed by considerations favoring immediate entry of judgment. See Timken v. Regan, 5 CIT 4, 6, 1983 WL 4993 (1983).

Here the Government's complaint presented two distinct claims—one for unpaid duties under 19 U.S.C. § 1592(d) and the second for a civil penalty associated with the negligent misclassification of the subject entries under 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a). Horizon...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT