Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria and Agricultura et al. v. United States

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:08-cv-00277-GWC Document 107 Filed 03/07/12 Page 1 of 2

Slip Op 12-30

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

FISCHER S.A. COMERCIO, INDUSTRIA
AND AGRICULTURA, and CITROSUCO

NORTH AMERICA, INC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES; Before: Gregory W. Carman, Judge
Court No. 08 00277
Defendant,
and

FLORIDA CITRUS MUTUAL, et al.,

Defendant Intervenors.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Carman, Judge: The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ motion for an indicative ruling
pursuant to USCIT Rule 62.1, and Defendant’s and Defendant Intervenors’ responses in
opposition thereto. USCIT Rule 62.1 states that

[i]f a timely motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority to grant
because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the court may:
(1) defer considering the motion;
(2) deny the motion; or
(3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals

ren mands LA 7 aor
remanas ror that purpose OL

USCIT R. 62.1(a). Plaintiffs ask the Court to select option (3) and state that the Court

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 1:08-cv-00277-GWC Document 107 Filed 03/07/12 Page 2 of 2

Court No. 08-00227 Page 2

would grant a motion for leave to amend the complaint or that such a motion by
Plaintiffs raises a substantial issue. (Pls.’ Mot., ECF No. 96.)

According to USCIT Rule 62.1, the Court is only authorized to make an indicative
ruling “[ilf a timely motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority to grant
because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending.” USCIT R. 62.1(a)
(emphasis added). Plaintiffs have not filed a motion to amend their complaint, and
even if they did, such a motion would not be timely, as final judgment was entered in
this case long ago. Consequently, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to
satisfy the.prerequisite for obtaining an indicative ruling under USCIT Rule 62.1.

Moreover, even if Plaintiffs had filed a timely motion (such as a motion for relief
from final judgment under USCIT Rule 60(b)) that this court lacked authority to grant
because of the appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the Court would deny the
motion out of respect for the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and in the interest of
finality of judgment. See USCIT R. 62.1(a)(2). For the foregoing reasons, then, it is
hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for an indicative ruling pursuant to USCIT

Rule 62.1 is denied.

/s/ Gregory W. Carman
Gregory W. Carman, Judge

Dated: March 7, 2012
New York, New York