999 F.Supp.2d 1330 (CIT 2014), 12-00020, Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co. v. United States

Docket Nº:Court 12-00020
Citation:999 F.Supp.2d 1330
Opinion Judge:Pogue, Senior Judge:
Party Name:CHANGZHOU HAWD FLOORING CO., LTD., et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant
Attorney:Court No. 12-00020 Gregory S. Menegaz, J. Kevin Horgan, and John J. Kenkel, deKieffer & Horgan, PLLC, of Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs. Kristin H. Mowry, Jeffrey S. Grimson, Jill A. Cramer, Sarah M. Wyss, and Daniel R. Wilson, Mowry & Grimson, PLLC, of Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Intervenor Fi...
Judge Panel:Before: Donald C. Pogue, Senior Judge.
Case Date:July 14, 2014
Court:Court of International Trade

Page 1330

999 F.Supp.2d 1330 (CIT 2014)

CHANGZHOU HAWD FLOORING CO., LTD., et al., Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant

Court No. 12-00020

United States Court of International Trade

July 14, 2014

Page 1331

motion to intervene denied.

Gregory S. Menegaz, J. Kevin Horgan, and John J. Kenkel, deKieffer & Horgan, PLLC, of Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Kristin H. Mowry, Jeffrey S. Grimson, Jill A. Cramer, Sarah M. Wyss, and Daniel R. Wilson, Mowry & Grimson, PLLC, of Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Intervenor Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Ltd.

H. Deen Kaplan, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, of Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Intervenor Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd.

Mark R. Ludwikowski, Arthur K. Purcell, Michelle L. Mejia, and Kristen Smith, Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, PA, of Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Intervenors Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC, and Home Legend, LLC.

Ronald M. Wisla and Lizabeth R. Levinson, Kutak Rock, LLP, of Washington, D.C., for Movants Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc., Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co., Ltd., Dalian Dajen Wood Co., Ltd., Dalian Kemian Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd., Dasso Industrial Group Co., Ltd., Dunhua City Hongyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Dunhua City Wanrong Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Panyu Southern Star Co., Ltd., HaiLin LinJing Wooden Products, Ltd., Hangzhou Hanje Tec Co., Ltd., Hunchun Forest Wolf Industry Co., Ltd., Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd., Huzhou Fulinmen Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd., Huzhou Fuma Wood Bus. Co., Ltd., Jianfeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd., Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd., Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., MuDanJiang Bosen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture (Dalian) Co., Ltd., Shanghai Eswell Timber Co., Ltd., Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd., Shanghai Shenlin Corporation., Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co., Ltd., Shenzhenshi Huanwei Woods Co., Ltd., Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd., Xuzhou Shenghe Wood Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Dadongwu GreenHome Wood Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Longsen Lumbering Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Shiyou Timber Co., Ltd.

Alexander V. Sverdlov, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for Defendant. Appearing with him were Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Claudia Burke, Assistant Director. Of counsel was Shana Hofstetter, Attorney, International Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, DC.

Jeffrey S. Levin, Levin Trade Law, P.C., of Bethesda, MD, for the Defendant-Intervenor.

Before: Donald C. Pogue, Senior Judge.

OPINION

Page 1332

OPINION AND MEMORANDUM

Pogue, Senior Judge:

The motion before the court comes from numerous exporters of multilayered wood flooring manufactured in the People's Republic of China (" Movants" ),1 who seek Plaintiff-Intervenor status in Changzhou Hawd Flooring, Co. v. United States, Court Number 12-00020, pursuant to USCIT Rules 7(b) and 24(a)(3). Mot. to Intervene at 1. Defendant, the United States, and Defendant-Intervenor, the Coalition for American Hardwood Parity (" CAHP" ), oppose the motion. Def.'s Resp. to the Mot. for Intervention, ECF No. 97; Def.-Intervenor's Oppo'n to Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 94. Because Movants have not demonstrated good cause for the untimely filing of their motion to intervene, their motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On February 8, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this action, challenging Commerce's determination in Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China, 76 Fed...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP