Tembec, Inc. v. United States Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. United States Gov't of Canada v. United States , 29 Ct. Int'l Trade 656 ( 2005 )

Slip Op. 05-79
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Before: HONORABLE JANE A. RESTANI, CHIEF JUDGE; JUDITH M. BARZILAY;
and RICHARD K. EATON, JUDGES
____________________________________
)
TEMBEC, INC. )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Court No. 05-00028
v. )
)
UNITED STATES, ET AL. )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
)
CANADIAN LUMBER TRADE )
ALLIANCE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Court No. 05-00032
v. )
)
UNITED STATES, ET AL., )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
)
THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Court No. 05-00033
v. )
)
UNITED STATES ET AL., )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiffs have moved to stay this case pending the outcome of an ongoing NAFTA
Extraordinary Challenge Committee (“ECC”) proceeding. Defendants oppose this motion.
Case No. 05-00028, 05-00032, 05-00033 Page 2
This Court has discretion to stay its own proceedings. See Tak Fat Trading Co. v. United
States, 24 CIT 1376, 1376-77 (2000) (citations omitted). While it is a long-standing principle
that a party plaintiff is the master of its complaint, “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to
the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with
economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Id. (citations omitted).
Guiding its decision whether to grant a stay, the court must “maintain an even balance,” taking
into account the interests of the plaintiff, the defendant, non-parties, and even the court itself.
See Georgetown Steel Co., LLC v. United States, 27 CIT __, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1344 (2003)
(citations omitted).
Plaintiffs argue that they have identified a number of factors warranting a stay. These
include the conservation of judicial resources, the possibility that facts relevant to this case would
change depending on the outcome of the ECC proceeding, and the expectation that the stay
would only last until approximately July or August 2005. Significantly, the Canadian Labor
Trade Alliance (“CLTA”) states that if the ECC were to reject the United States’ challenge and
Commerce were to vacate the implementation and Amendment to Orders, CLTA could possibly
dismiss certain claims. Also, CLTA argues that after the ECC acts, the nature of this case will
differ, in that there will exist either two affirmative ITC determinations or one affirmative and
one negative determination. Thus, plaintiffs argue that this court should use its discretion to
order a stay.
Defendants, on the other hand, oppose a stay by arguing that the ultimate outcome of the
ECC proceeding will have no effect on the central issue in this case -- whether the United States
Case No. 05-00028, 05-00032, 05-00033 Page 3
Trade Representative and Department of Commerce acted within their statutory authority.
Defendants also question plaintiffs’ judicial economy arguments, arguing that plaintiffs are
attempting to manipulate the system by filing separate actions before three different tribunals and
using one to stall litigation in the other. Defendants also posit that the public interest would not
be served by a stay in this matter.
Weighing these factors, the court finds that a stay is warranted. The prospect of a refined
and possibly narrower scope of litigation, as well as the short duration of time requested for the
stay, outweigh any potential harm to defendants or to the public interest. Accordingly, it is
hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that the proceedings in this action are stayed pending the outcome of the
ongoing NAFTA Extraordinary Challenge Committee proceeding, Secretariat File No. ECC-
2004-1904-01-USA.
____/s/ Jane A. Restani__________
Chief Judge Jane A. Restani
____/s/ Judith M. Barzilay_______
Judge Judith M. Barzilay
____/s/ Richard K. Eaton________
Judge Richard K. Eaton
_____July 5, 2005__________
New York, NY