Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. v. United States

• Decision Date: 30 October 2015
• Docket Number: Slip Op. 15–121.,Court No. 14–00267.
• Parties: ICDAS CELIK ENERJI TERSANE VE ULASIM SANAYI, A.S., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

113 F.Supp.3d 1316

ICDAS CELIK ENERJI TERSANE VE ULASIM SANAYI, A.S., Plaintiff,

v.UNITED STATES, Defendant.

Slip Op. 15–121.

Court No. 14–00267.

United States Court of International Trade.

Oct. 30, 2015.

Matthew M. Nolan, Diana D. Quaia, and Nancy A. Noonan, Arent Fox LLP of Washington, DC, for Plaintiff Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S.

Richard P. Schroeder, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice of Washington, DC, for Defendant, United States. With him on the briefs were Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, and Reginald T. Blades, Jr., Assistant Director. Of counsel on the briefs were Scott McBride, Senior Attorney, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance of Washington, DC.

Alan H. Price, John R. Shane, and Maureen E. Thorson, Wiley Rein LLP of Washington, DC, for Defendant–Intervenors Rebar Trade Action Coalition, Nucor Corporation, Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., Commercial Metals Company, and Byer Steel Corporation.

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

GORDON, Judge:

Before the Court is Defendant–Intervenor Rebar Trade Action Coalition's ("RTAC") motion for certification. See RTAC's Mot. for Order Certifying Questions for Interlocutory Appeal 1 (Sept. 29, 2015), ECF No. 41 ("RTAC's Mot."). Defendant opposes RTAC's motion. See Def.'s Resp. to Def.-Intervenors' Mot. for an Order Certifying Questions for Interlocutory Appeal (Oct. 22, 2015), ECF No. 45 ("Def.'s Resp."). Plaintiff takes no position on the motion.

RTAC seeks certification of questions arising from the court's recent opinion and order granting Plaintiff's motion to amend the caption of its complaint and denying Defendant's and RTAC's cross-motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. RTAC's Mot. at 1–5; see Icdas Celik Enerji Tersane ve Ulasim Sanayi, A.S. v. United States, 39 CIT ––––, Slip Op. 15–109, at 4–16, 106 F.Supp.3d 1328, 1331–37, 2015 WL 5604071 (Sep. 24, 2015). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d), the court may certify questions for interlocutory appeal when there exists "a controlling question of law is involved with respect to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion" such that "an immediate appeal from that order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(1) (2012). RTAC and Defendant agree that the court's opinion in Icdas presents a controlling question of law to which there is a substantial ground for disagreement. RTAC's Mot. at 1, 4–5; Def.'s Resp. at 1–3. RTAC and the Government dispute whether interlocutory appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of this action.

RTAC argues that a favorable decision on appeal would relieve the court and the parties of the need to litigate the merits of Icdas' action. RTAC's Mot. at 5. The court does not agree. "Denial of a motion to dismiss a complaint is not sufficient, in itself, to warrant certification of an interlocutory appeal." Nat'l Corn Growers Ass'n v. Baker, 9 CIT 571, 583, 623 F.Supp. 1262, 1273 (1985)rev'd on other grounds, 840 F.2d 1547 (Fed.Cir.1988). And as Defendant correctly points out,...