Columbia Aluminum Prods., LLC v. United States

2023 CIT 12

Opinion

Slip Op. 23-ŗŘ

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COLUMBIA ALUMINUM PRODUCTS, LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Before: Timothy C. Stanceu, Judge UNITED STATES,

Consolidated Court No. 19-00185 Defendant,

and

ENDURA PRODUCTS, INC.,

Defendant-Intervenor.

OPINION AND ORDER

[Denying defendant-intervenor’s motion for a stay of proceedings]

Dated: February 6, 2023

Jeremy W. Dutra, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. With him on the brief was Peter J. Koenig.

Alexander J. Vanderweide, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, N.Y., for defendant. With him on the briefs was Justin R. Miller, Attorney-in-Charge. Also on the briefs were Jeanne E. Davidson, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., and Stephen C. Tosini, Senior Trial Counsel. Of counsel on the briefs was Tamari J. Lagvilava, Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C.

Robert E. DeFrancesco, III, Wiley Rein LLP, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiff and defendant-intervenor Endura Products, Inc. With him on the briefs was Elizabeth S. Lee. Court No. 19-00185 Page 2

Stanceu, Judge: Endura Products, Inc. (“Endura”), a plaintiff and defendant-

intervenor in this consolidated action, which was brought to contest decisions of U.S.

Customs and Border Protection (“Customs” or “CBP”) under the Enforce and Protect

Act, 19 U.S.C. § 1517 (2018) (“EAPA”), moves to stay proceedings pending a conclusive

decision in an appeal of this Court’s judgment in another proceeding. Defendant

United States consents to a stay. Plaintiff Columbia Aluminum Products, LLC

(“Columbia Aluminum” or “Columbia”) is opposed. The court denies the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

This litigation arose from determinations by Customs that certain assembled

door thresholds imported from Vietnam by Columbia were evading antidumping and

countervailing duty orders on certain aluminum extrusions from the People’s Republic

of China (the “Orders”). Notice of Final Determination as to Evasion (Mar. 20, 2019), PR

Doc. 61;1 Enforce and Protect Act (“EAPA”) Case Number 7232 (Aug. 26, 2019), PR Doc. 67;

Aluminum Extrusions from the People’s Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order, 76 Fed.

Reg. 30,650 (Int’l Trade Admin. May 26, 2011); Aluminum Extrusions From the People’s

Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order, 76 Fed. Reg. 30,653 (Int’l Trade Admin.

May 26, 2011).

1 Documents in the Administrative Record (Oct. 23, 2019), ECF Nos. 24 (public), 25 (conf.) are cited herein as “PR Doc. __.” All citations to record documents are to the public version of those documents. Court No. 19-00185 Page 3

Columbia and Endura have filed motions for judgment on the agency record

under USCIT Rule 56.2. In the Opinion and Order in Columbia Alum. Prods., LLC v.

United States, 46 CIT __, Slip Op. No. 22-156 (Dec. 23, 2022), this Court denied a motion

of defendant for a remand and ordered the resumption of briefing on Columbia’s and

Endura’s Rule 56.2 motions. Under that Opinion and Order, defendant’s and Endura’s

responses to Columbia’s Rule 56.2 motion and defendant’s response to Endura’s

Rule 56.2 motion are due on February 21, 2023. Id. at 16.

Endura filed its motion for a stay on January 6, 2023. Partial Consent Mot. to

Stay Proceedings, ECF No. 67 (“Endura’s Mot.”). Columbia filed its opposition to the

motion on January 27, 2023. Opp’n to Mot. to Stay Proceedings, ECF No. 68

(“Columbia’s Opp’n”).

II. DISCUSSION

The decision to stay proceedings is a matter for the court’s broad discretion and

involves considerations of fairness to the litigants and judicial economy. In this

instance, the court concludes that Endura has failed to demonstrate that the stay it seeks

will serve both of these objectives.

Endura bases its stay motion on its intention to appeal the judgment of this Court

in Columbia Alum. Prods., LLC v. United States, 46 CIT __, Slip Op. No. 22-144 (Dec. 16,

2022). Judgment (Dec. 16, 2022), Ct. No. 19-00013, ECF No. 93. Endura refers to this Court No. 19-00185 Page 4

litigation as the “Columbia Scope Appeal.” Endura’s Mot. 2. The judgment sustained a

decision Commerce reached, upon remand and under protest, that certain door

thresholds Columbia imported from China were not within the scope of the Orders. See

Columbia Alum. Prods., LLC v. United States, 46 CIT __, Slip Op. No. 22-156 (Dec. 23,

2022). Endura maintains that “[a] stay in this case would preserve the resources of the

parties and the Court, as final resolution of the Columbia Scope Appeal may narrow the

issues in the instant action.” Endura’s Mot. 3 (citation omitted). In its view, a stay is

needed “to ensure that efforts and resources of the Court and of the parties are not

expended and later rendered moot.” Id. at 4. It argues, further, that a stay “would

simply preserve the status quo” and “would not work undue harm or prejudice.” Id.

Columbia disagrees that a stay would preserve resources and argues that it

would be prejudicial as it “would allow the evasion determination against Columbia

Aluminum to remain in place notwithstanding Commerce[’s] determining that

Columbia Aluminum’s assembled thresholds are outside the scope of the Orders, thus

imposing a continuing reputational harm on Columbia Aluminum and a financial harm

given CBP’s suspension of liquidation preventing the release of customs bonds.”

Columbia’s Opp’n 2. Columbia adds that Endura has failed to demonstrate that

denying a stay would cause it hardship or inequity, id., and the court agrees with this

view. Endura has not convinced the court that continuing to participate in this Court No. 19-00185 Page 5

litigation on the current schedule, either in its capacity as a plaintiff or as a defendant-

intervenor, will cause it harm in any appreciable way that could justify interrupting

these proceedings pending its pursuit of an appeal in related litigation.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

On balance, the court concludes that allowing this litigation to proceed under the

current schedule is preferable to a stay, which has the potential to cause prejudice to

Columbia and is not necessary to avoid prejudice to Endura.

Therefore, in consideration of Endura’s motion to stay and Columbia’s

opposition thereto, and upon due deliberation, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Partial Consent Motion to Stay Proceedings (Jan. 6, 2023), ECF No. 67, be, and hereby is, denied.

/s/ Timothy C. Stanceu Timothy C. Stanceu, Judge

Dated: February 6, 2023 New York, New York