One World Techs., Inc. v. United States
| Citation | 380 F.Supp.3d 1300 |
| Decision Date | 11 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | Slip Op. 19-33,Court No. 19-00017 |
| Parties | ONE WORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection, and Acting Commissioner Kevin K. McAleenan, Defendants, The Chamberlain Group, Inc. and United States International Trade Commission, Defendant-Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. Court of International Trade |
Jason C. White, Michael J. Abernathy, and Nicholas A. Restauri, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, of Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff One World Technologies, Inc.
Guy R. Eddon, Amy M. Rubin, International Trade Field Office, U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, N.Y., and Edward F. Kenny, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, N.Y., for Defendants United States, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and Acting Commissioner Kevin K. McAleenan. Marcella Powell, International Trade Field Office, U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, N.Y., for Defendant United States. With them on the brief was Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General. Of counsel was Michael Heydrich, Office of Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Sidney A. Rosenzweig and Carl P. Bretscher, U.S. International Trade Commission, of Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Intervenor U.S. International Trade Commission.
Joseph V. Colaianni, Jr., Benjamin Elacqua, and John T. Johnson, Fish & Richardson, P.C., of Washington, D.C., Houston, TX, and New York, N.Y., for Defendant-Intervenor The Chamberlain Group, Inc.
This case highlights the procedural and jurisdictional hurdles that a party must overcome when it seeks to prevent the Government from stopping the import of its products into the United States. In this case, One World Technologies, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "One World") seeks declaratory and injunctive relief from the Court to allow future imports of its merchandise into the United States. Plaintiff faces a frustrating dilemma, but has not met its procedural burdens to establish jurisdiction for declaratory relief.
The U.S. Court of International Trade, as an Article III Court, has limited jurisdiction. The Court is empowered to hear civil actions brought against the United States pursuant to the specific grants of jurisdiction enumerated under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) – (i). The Court may grant declaratory, prospective relief for future imports under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(h) in certain circumstances, but only if the parties establish that each of the statutory requirements has been met for the court to exercise proper jurisdiction. In this case 19-00017, and in another case 18-00200 pending before the Court, Plaintiff has attempted to establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(h). Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief that will prevent Defendants from taking actions against its imported merchandise, but Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1581(h) in both cases. Plaintiff may seek to amend its pleadings to meet the requirements as outlined in this opinion.
Before the Court is the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction ("First Motion for TRO/PI") of One World, and the Motion to Dismiss of the United States, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection and Commissioner Kevin K. McAleenan (collectively, "Defendants"). For the reasons that follow, the court exercises subject-matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), denies Defendants' motion to dismiss, and grants Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction in part.
The court assumes familiarity with the facts leading up to this dispute as discussed in One World Technologies, Inc. v. United States, 42 CIT ––––, 357 F.Supp.3d. 1278 (2018) (" One World I"). One World brought this action on January 25, 2019, seeking a temporary restraining order ("TRO"), a preliminary injunction ("PI"), the immediate release by U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("Customs") of certain imported, redesigned garage door openers ("GDOs") contained in entries numbers: 442-75658274 ("First Shipment"), 442-75658266 ("Second Shipment"), 442-75661187 ("Third Shipment"), and 442-75661948 ("Fourth Shipment"), and declaratory relief. Pl. Compl. ¶¶ 3–4, 11–18, 60–72 (Jan. 25, 2019), ECF No. 6; Pl. One World Technologies, Inc.'s Mot. for TRO and Prelim. Inj. (Jan. 25, 2019), ECF No. 7 ("Pl.'s Mot."); Mem. of P. & A. Supp. of Pl. Mot. for TRO and Prelim. Inj. (Jan. 25, 2019), ECF No. 8.
The court requested supplemental briefing on the court's subject-matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) on January 28, 2019. Order, ECF No. 11.
Defendants provided supplemental information regarding the status of the four entries on January 29, 2019 as follows:
Entry No. Date Status
Presented
442-75658274 1/14/2019 Detained at the Port of Savannah, GA
[First Detention no. 20191703000053 issued on January 15, 2019
Shipment] Reason for detention: Import specialist review
442-75658266 1/17/2019 Detained at the Port of Savannah, GA
[Second Detention no. 20191703000056 issued on January 17, 2019
Shipment] Reason for detention: Import specialist review
442-75661187 1/29/2019 Presented for Customs examination[.]
[Third
Shipment]
442-75661948 N/A The container ship is arriving today. [January 29, 2019.] [The
[Fourth Amended Status Update, ECF No. 22, dated January 30
Shipment] 2019, also stated "[t]he container ship is arriving today."]
Def. Status Update, ECF No. 16. Defendants did not identify the importation date for the four entries. Id. Defendants provided another status update on February 1, 2019, notifying the court that Customs intended to seize the First and Second Shipments on Tuesday, February 12, 2019. Defs. Status Update, ECF No. 24. At that time, Defendants did not have information regarding seizure dates for the Third and Fourth Shipments. ECF No. 24.
The U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC") moved to intervene on February 5, 2019. Mot. of the ITC for Leave to Intervene in Support of Defendants, ECF No. 27. The Chamberlain Group, Inc. ("Chamberlain") moved to intervene on February 6, 2019. Chamberlain's Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 33.
Plaintiff submitted an additional motion for a temporary restraining order on February 6, 2019. Pl. One World Technologies, Inc.'s Mot. for TRO (Feb. 6, 2019), ECF No. 28 ("Pl.'s 2nd Mot. for TRO").
The court held a TRO, Preliminary Injunction and Jurisdiction Hearing ("TRO & PI Hr'g") on February 11, 2019. TRO & PI Hr'g, Feb. 11, 2019, ECF No. 50. Based on the record and the representations of the parties as of that time, the court granted the TRO. TRO, ECF No. 51.
Chamberlain petitioned to attend the TRO & PI Hearing. Chamberlain's Pet. To Attend the TRO & PI Hr'g, ECF No. 47. The court denied Chamberlain's petition because the court was previously notified that confidential information would be discussed in the hearing and Chamberlain was not a signatory to the protective order. Order, ECF No. 48. Chamberlain filed a writ of mandamus in the U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit on February 13, 2019, which was denied on March 7, 2019.
The court ordered that the Parties respond to Chamberlain's and the ITC's motions to intervene by February 15, 2019. Order, ECF No. 52. Following the Parties' responses, the court granted Chamberlain's motion to intervene, granted ITC's motion to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging subject matter jurisdiction, and requested supplemental briefing as to the court's subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(h) or (i) in this case on February 15, 2019, ECF No. 53; ECF No. 56.1
Defendants submitted the instant Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Demand for a Jury Trial, and in Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction ( ) on February 15, 2019. Defs.' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 58, 59. In Defendants' motion, Defendants proffered importation and exclusion dates for each entry as follows:
Entry No. Date of Date Presented Date of Detention Date of Deemed
Importation for Examination Exclusion
442-75658274 January 2, 2019 January 14, 2019 January 15, 2019 February 14, 2019
Notice no. [2]
20191703000053
442-75658266 January 2, 2019 January 17, 2019 January 17, 2019 February 17, 2019
Notice no
20191703000056
442-75661187 January 22, 2019 January 29, 2019 January 31, 2019 March 1, 2019
Notice no.
20191703000065
442-75661948 January 29, 2019 January 31, 2019 February 4, 2019 March 3, 2019
Notice no.
20191703000067
[Editor's Note: The preceding image contains the reference for footnote2 ].
The court extended the TRO on February 21, 2019, finding good cause and to preserve the status quo while the court received responses to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss from the Parties. TRO Extension, ECF No. 70.
In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant when deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 797 (Fed....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keirton U.S. Inc. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot.
...grant Keirton's claim for injunctive relief. USCIT R. 65; 28 U.S.C. § 2643(c)(1). For example, in One World Technologies, Inc. v. United States, 380 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2019), an importer sought an injunction from theCIT to allow future imports of its merchandise into the Unit......
- Kartagener v. Carnival Corp., Case No. 18-CV-20974-KING/LOUIS
- One World Techs., Inc. v. United States