Former Emp. of Drive Sol Global Steering, Inc. v. U.S. Sec'y of Labor
| Citation | 181 F.Supp.3d 1369 |
| Decision Date | 13 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | Court No. 15-00172,Slip Op. 16-98 |
| Parties | Former Employee of Drive Sol Global Steering, Inc., Plaintiff, v. United States Secretary of Labor, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
Steven David Schwinn , of Chicago, IL, for plaintiff.
Antonia Ramos Soares , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for defendant. With her on the brief were Benjamin C. Mizer , Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and Claudia Burke , Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief was Molly J. Theobald , Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, of Washington, DC.
This matter is before the court on Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's cause of action pursuant to USCIT Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, pursuant to USCIT Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a cause of action. Def.'s Mot. Dismiss, Aug. 24, 2015, ECF No. 9 ("Mot. Dismiss"). Plaintiff brought this action to challenge the failure to disburse all Trade Readjustment Allowance ("TRA") benefits available under §§ 231 through 234 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended,1 19 U.S.C. § 2291 –2294, by the State of Connecticut Department of Labor acting as agent of the U.S. Department of Labor ("Labor") administering the Trade Adjustment Assistance ("TAA") program.2 See Summons and Compl. 6, June 6, 2015, ECF No.1–2. ("Compl."); see also Letter Issued by Case Manager Steve Taronji to Pl. Concerning Acceptance of Correspondence for Filing as Summons and Compl., June 24, 2015, ECF No. 3. Plaintiff also contends Labor failed to properly oversee federal TRA funds on behalf of all workers and that the State of Connecticut misallocated federal funds.3 See Compl. 6; see also Letter Issued by Case Manager Steve Taronji to Pl. Concerning Acceptance of Correspondence for Filing as Summons and Compl., June 24, 2015, ECF No. 3.
On August 24, 2015, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's cause of action. See Mot. Dismiss. Plaintiff responds that the court has jurisdiction over his cause of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(d)(1) (2012)4 or, in the alternative, under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(4).5 Pl.'s Resp. Def.'s Mot. Dismiss 9–13, Dec. 21, 2015, ECF No. 25 ( ). Plaintiff also argues that he has stated a claim for relief. Resp. Br. 7–8; Pl.'s Sur-Reply to Def.'s Reply Supp. Mot. Dismiss 13–14, Aug 22, 2016, ECF No. 38 ("Pl.'s Sur-Reply"). Defendant filed its reply brief on February 5, 2016. Def.'s Reply Supp. Mot. Dismiss, Feb. 5, 2016, ECF No. 28 ("Def.'s Reply Br."). On July 28, 2016, the court granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply, see Order, July 28, 2016, ECF No. 37, and Plaintiff filed his sur-reply on August 22, 2016. See Pl.'s Sur-Reply. On September 12, 2016, the court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the appropriateness of transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Scheduling Order, Sep. 12, 2016, ECF No. 40; see also Letter filed by the Court, Sept. 12, 2016, ECF No. 39. Briefing concluded on September 26, 2016, when the parties filed supplemental briefs on the issue of transfer. See Def.'s Suppl. Br., Sept. 26, 2016, ECF No. 41 ( ); Pl.'s Suppl. Br. Appropriateness of Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, Sept. 26, 2016, ECF No. 42 ( ). For the reasons that follow, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's cause of action, but the court transfers the action to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
Plaintiff is a former employee of Drive Sol Global Steering, Inc. ("Drive Sol"), Compl. 9, 15, who is a member of the worker group certified by Labor as eligible to receive Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance. See Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance, 73 Fed. Reg. 9,834, 9,835 (Dep't Labor Feb. 22, 2008). On February 13, 2009, Drive Sol advised Plaintiff that it planned to shut down its entire plant located in Watertown, Connecticut. Compl. 15. The same notice informed Plaintiff Drive Sol would permanently lay him off as of approximately June 1, 2009. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that he applied for TRA benefits. Compl. 1,18. Plaintiff further alleges that, on April 17, 2009, the State of Connecticut Department of Labor ("CT Labor") affirmatively determined he was eligible to apply for TAA benefits, including basic weekly TRA benefits in the amount of $474.00 per week for the period from March 29, 2009 through March 26, 2011.6 Compl. 9, 16–18. Plaintiff alleges CT Labor subsequently reversed course and denied him benefits because he failed to meet the state of Connecticut's "work search" requirement for unemployment benefit eligibility. Compl. 13–14, 23–24.
Plaintiff alleges he appealed CT Labor's determination to the Connecticut Employment Security Appeals Division Board of Review and then to the Connecticut Superior Court. Compl. 10–11. Plaintiff alleges both bodies affirmed CT Labor's determination. Complaint 10–11. Plaintiff alleges he continued to pursue his claims through various channels, including through CT Labor, the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, the Governor of the State of Connecticut, the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, and his representatives in both houses of Congress. Compl. 1, 3, 6, 13–14, 20–26.
On January 2, 2014, Plaintiff contacted Labor's Regional Trade Coordinator for the Employment and Training Administration to further pursue his claims to TRA benefits. Compl. 24–25. On January 5, 2014, after a representative of the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut referred the matter to Labor's Office of the Solicitor for guidance, Labor's Regional Trade Coordinator advised Plaintiff that the Employment and Training Administration has direct oversight over the TRA program and that CT Labor's decisions in administering the program are subject to review by Labor. Comp. 23–24. Labor further advised Plaintiff that it believed CT Labor had erroneously denied his application on grounds that he was required to seek or accept employment to be eligible for TRA benefits under Connecticut state law. Compl. 23–24. Lastly, Labor advised Plaintiff that it contacted CT Labor to provide instructions, and Labor stated that CT Labor would "seek administrative or other avenues to reverse [its] prior decision." Compl. 24.
The Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut advised Plaintiff that Labor had discussed the errors with CT Labor and that CT Labor worked with the Connecticut Attorney General's office to set aside the Connecticut Superior Court's decision affirming the denial of his individual TRA benefits. Compl. 14. Plaintiff's complaint includes a letter from the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut indicating that CT Labor subsequently filed a motion to set aside and vacate the judgment of the Connecticut Superior Court in Plaintiff's state court action and that this motion was granted on January 10, 2014 by the Connecticut Superior Court. Compl. 14. Plaintiff does not contest that CT Labor filed a motion to vacate its judgment or that such a motion was granted by the Connecticut Superior Court in its response or in his sur-reply.
Plaintiff initiated this action challenging CT Labor's actions, as agent of Labor, depriving him of his full TRA benefits in violation of federal law and Labor's mismanagement and misapplication of the TAA program. Compl. 2; Resp. Br. 18. Plaintiff alleges that the errors committed by CT Labor in administering the TAA program, and by Labor in overseeing that administration, caused the following harms: (1) full TRA benefits were not paid "while [he] was in the TRA program"; (2) the delayed payment of full TRA benefits forced Plaintiff to use personal savings to meet travel expenses to attend job retraining programs for which he should have received TAA benefits; (3) Plaintiff incurred penalties in accessing personal savings in an individual retirement account; (4) Plaintiff incurred administrative expenses, travel expenses, and court fees in pursuing his claims for benefits; and (5) Plaintiff suffered increased tax liability because certain TAA benefits that should have been disbursed in 2011 were actually disbursed in 2013. Compl. 2–3.
Plaintiff acknowledges that he did receive at least some benefits. Compl. 5. Nonetheless, Plaintiff seeks two forms of relief: "fix [his] issue and fix the problem for the others that have been harmed."
Compl. 6. Defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to USCIT Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, pursuant to USCIT Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a cause of action.7 Mot. Dismiss.
The party seeking the Court's jurisdiction has the burden of establishing that jurisdiction exists. SeeNorsk Hydro Canada, Inc. v. United States, 472 F.3d 1347, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, "[w]here, as here, claims depend upon a waiver of sovereign immunity, a jurisdictional statute is to be strictly construed." Celta Agencies, Inc. v. United States, 36 CIT ––––, ––––, 865 F.Supp.2d 1348, 1352 (2012) (citing United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 531, 115 S.Ct. 1611, 131 L.Ed.2d 608 (1995) ).
In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to USCIT Rule 12(b)(6), the court assumes all factual allegations in the complaint to be true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Cedars – Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573, 1584 n.13 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted); Gould, Inc. v. United States, 935 F.2d 1271, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citations omitted).
To continue reading
Request your trial