Arvinmeritor, Inc. v. United States , 29 Ct. Int'l Trade 899 ( 2005 )

Slip Op. 05 - 96
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
ARVINMERITOR, INC., :
Plaintiff, :
v. :
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT :
OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES CUS-
TOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; MICHAEL CHER- :
TOFF, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT Court No. 05-00461
OF HOMELAND SECURITY; ROBERT C. BONNER, :
COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES BUREAU OF
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; GEORGE :
FREDERICK McCRAY, CHIEF, INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS BRANCH, UNITED STATES :
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,
:
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
Memorandum & Order
[Motion of Eaton Corporation for leave
to intervene as a party denied.]
Dated: August 12, 2005
Neville Peterson LLP (John M. Peterson, George W. Thompson,
Curtis W. Knauss and Maria E. Celis) for the plaintiff.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; Barbara S.
Williams, Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office,
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of
Justice (Marcella Powell), for the defendants.
Miller & Chevalier Chartered (Sturgis M. Sobin, Joel W. Rogers
and Charles F.B. McAleer, Jr.) for proposed intervenor-defendant
Eaton Corporation.
AQUILINO, Senior Judge: The plaintiff commenced this
action with the filing of a summons and complaint on August 5,
2005, averring, among other things, jurisdiction of the court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1581(i)(3) and (4).
Court No. 05-00461 Page 2
Upon initially concluding that it did in fact and law
possess such jurisdiction, the court granted plaintiff's immediate
application for an order, directing the defendants to appear and
show cause on August 12, 2005 why a preliminary injunction should
not enter against them herein and why this action should not be
resolved upon an expedited schedule.
On August 11, 2005, a motion for leave to intervene as a
party in opposition to plaintiff's prayers for relief was filed on
behalf of Eaton Corporation, which has been a complainant pursuant
to 19 U.S.C. §1337 before the United States International Trade
Commission sub nom. Matter of Certain Automated Mechanical Trans-
mission Systems for Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Trucks and Compon-
ents Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-503, and from which matter this
action emanates.
In accordance with USCIT Rule 7(b), counsel for the pro-
posed intervenor certified in their motion papers that they had
consulted with counsel for the plaintiff and for the defendants,
whereupon the former stated that they did not oppose the motion,
while government counsel consented to its grant.
At the call in open court today, August 12, 2005, of this
action pursuant to plaintiff's order to show cause, the plaintiff
and the defendants filed a Stipulation of Settlement and Dismissal
pursuant to USCIT Rule 41(a)(1). Counsel for proposed intervenor
Court No. 05-00461 Page 3
Eaton Corporation appeared and were heard essentially in opposition
to the terms and conditions of the settlement.
Rule 41(a)(1) provides in part that an action may be
dismissed by the
plaintiff without order of court (A) by filing a notice
of dismissal . . . at any time before service by the
adverse party of an answer or motion for summary judg-
ment, whichever occurs first, or (B) by filing a stipula-
tion of dismissal . . ..
The issue thus arose herein as to the import of the prior filing of
the motion to intervene, in particular given the lack of opposition
thereto on the part of either the plaintiff or the defendants.
None of the advocates at the hearing shed much light on
the issue, leaving the undersigned to conclude, after due delibera-
tion, that a court always retains jurisdiction to supervise and
administer its own docket, including the authority to decide a
motion essentially adverse to the terms of a voluntary dismissal
interposed beforehand on behalf of a person not yet granted leave
to intervene in the action.
In the exercise of that jurisdiction, the court hereby
denies the motion of Eaton Corporation to intervene as a party.
So ordered.
Dated: New York, New York
August 12, 2005
Thomas J. Aquilino, Jr.
Senior Judge