One World Technologies, Inc. v. United States et al

ERRATA
One World Technologies, Inc. v. United States, Court No. 19-CV-00017, Confidential Slip Op.
19-33, dated March 11, 2019.
Page 5: On line 3 of the third full paragraph, replace “[[58]]” with “58”.
Page 8: On line 3 of the second full paragraph, replace “[[Hr’g. Tr. 20:21–25, Feb. 11, 2019]]”
with “Hr’g. Tr. 20:21–25, Feb. 11, 2019”.
Page 8: On line 3 of the third full paragraph, replace “[[Hr’g. Tr. 50:6–10, Feb. 11, 2019]]” with
“Hr’g. Tr. 50:6–10, Feb. 11, 2019”.
Page 8: On line 6 through line 7 of the third full paragraph, replace “[[Hr’g. Tr. 50:6–10, Feb. 11,
2019]]” with “Hr’g. Tr. 50:6–10, Feb. 11, 2019”.
Page 9: On line 6 of the first full paragraph, replace “[[19, ECF Nos. 58]]” with “19, ECF Nos.
58”.
Page 9: On line 5 through line 11 of footnote 3, replace:
“[[ 	JUDGE: for purposes of importation, how did the government -- what date would the
government deem the entry to be imported? Is it date of presentment [or] the date of
detention?
MR. KENNY: Your Honor, I don't think the date of importation is not -- is not a date
that's relevant. . . . It's date of presentment, followed by whether or not there's an
exclusion within certain days of that date or not.
TRO & PI Hr’g. Tr. 19:1–9]]” with:
“ 	JUDGE: for purposes of importation, how did the government -- what date would the
government deem the entry to be imported? Is it date of presentment [or] the date of
detention?
MR. KENNY: Your Honor, I don't think the date of importation is not -- is not a date
that's relevant. . . . It's date of presentment, followed by whether or not there's an
exclusion within certain days of that date or not.
TRO & PI Hr’g. Tr. 19:1–9.”
Pages 9–10: On page 9, line 5 of the third full paragraph through page 10, line 4 of the first
paragraph, replace “[[One World contended that their complaint was filed before the Third and
Fourth Shipments were imported. TRO & PI Hr. Tr. 20:21–21:3, Feb. 11, 2019. One World also
argued that other, “future shipments . . . destined for the U.S. in the coming weeks and months”
would qualify for preimportation. TRO & PI Hr. Tr. 20: 21-24, Feb. 11, 2019.4 ]]” with “One
World contended that their complaint was filed before the Third and Fourth Shipments were
imported. TRO & PI Hr. Tr. 20:21–21:3, Feb. 11, 2019. One World also argued that other,
Case 1:19-cv-00017-JCG Document 173 Filed 05/06/19 Page 1 of 4

“future shipments . . . destined for the U.S. in the coming weeks and months” would qualify for
preimportation. TRO & PI Hr. Tr. 20:21-24, Feb. 11, 2019.4 ”
Page 10: On line 8 of the first paragraph, replace “[[58]]” with “58”.
Page 10: On line 8 through line 9 of the first paragraph, replace “[[Plaintiff counters that prior to
importation means prior to importation of a specific shipment. TRO & PI Hr. Tr. 35:1–6, Feb.
11, 2019, ECF No. 60.]]” with “Plaintiff counters that prior to importation means prior to
importation of a specific shipment. TRO & PI Hr. Tr. 35:1–6, Feb. 11, 2019, ECF No. 60.”
Page 10: On line 3 through line 8 of footnote 4, replace “[[Customs’ detention notice for entry
no. 442-75662557 states “[a]dmissibility determination research” as the reason for detention.
Entry no. 442-75662557 was presented on February 7, 2019, but does not have an identified
importation date. 	ECF No. 62, Ex. B. One World’s brief does not attach a detention notice for
Entry no. 442-76565436, but does include an Entry Summary. Entry no. 442-76565436 was
listed as imported on February 18, 2019. 	ECF No. 62, Ex. C.]]” with “Customs’ detention
notice for entry no. 442-75662557 states “[a]dmissibility determination research” as the reason
for detention. Entry no. 442-75662557 was presented on February 7, 2019, but does not have an
identified importation date. 	ECF No. 62, Ex. B. One World’s brief does not attach a detention
notice for Entry no. 442-76565436, but does include an Entry Summary. Entry no. 442-
76565436 was listed as imported on February 18, 2019. 	ECF No. 62, Ex. C.”
Page 11: On line 2 through line 5 of the second full paragraph, replace “[[One World does not
specify whether it believes that the presentment date was the date of importation under 19 C.F.R.
§ 101.1, or if there was a separate importation date for that shipment. See TRO & PI Hr’g Tr.
22:3–7, ECF No. 60]]” with “One World does not specify whether it believes that the
presentment date was the date of importation under 19 C.F.R. § 101.1, or if there was a separate
importation date for that shipment. See TRO & PI Hr’g Tr. 22:3–7, ECF No. 60”.
Page 12: On line 2 through line 3 of the first full paragraph, replace “[[TRO & PI Hr’g Tr.
17:19–23, ECF No. 60]]” with “TRO & PI Hr’g Tr. 17:19–23, ECF No. 60”.
Page 12: On line 5 of the first full paragraph, replace “[[See TRO & PI Hr’g Tr. 22:3–7, ECF
No. 60.]]” with “See TRO & PI Hr’g Tr. 22:3–7, ECF No. 60.”
Page 12: On line 3 through line 4 of the second full paragraph, replace “[[TRO & PI Hr’g Tr.
17:19–23, ECF No. 60]]” with “TRO & PI Hr’g Tr. 17:19–23, ECF No. 60”.
Page 12: On line 6 of the second full paragraph, replace “[[See TRO & PI Hr’g Tr. 22:3–7, ECF
No. 60.]]” with “See TRO & PI Hr’g Tr. 22:3–7, ECF No. 60.”
Page 13: On line 3 through line 6 of the second full paragraph, replace “[[Plaintiff cross-
references the Defendants’ identified importation date. Pl. Suppl. Br. in Supp. of the Ct.’s
Subject Matter Jurisdiction, ECF No. 62; TRO & PI Hr. Tr. 17:19–23, 20:21–24, Feb. 11, 2019,
ECF No. 60; see Entry Summary for Entry No. 442-75661948, ECF No. 21, Ex. X.]]” with
“Plaintiff cross-references the Defendants’ identified importation date. Pl. Suppl. Br. in Supp. of
Case 1:19-cv-00017-JCG Document 173 Filed 05/06/19 Page 2 of 4

the Ct.’s Subject Matter Jurisdiction, ECF No. 62; TRO & PI Hr. Tr. 17:19–23, 20:21–24, Feb.
11, 2019, ECF No. 60; see Entry Summary for Entry No. 442-75661948, ECF No. 21, Ex. X.”
Page 13: On line 1 through line 3 of the third full paragraph, replace “[[Defendants argue that:
(1) final agency action has not occurred in this case, and (2) One World has not challenged a
Customs ruling in the present case. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss 17–21, ECF No. 58]]” with
“Defendants argue that: (1) final agency action has not occurred in this case, and (2) One World
has not challenged a Customs ruling in the present case. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss 14–21, ECF No.
59”.
Page 15: On line 4 through line 5 of the first paragraph, replace “[[Pl. Br. Supp. Subject Matter
Jurisdiction Under 18 U.S.C. § 1581(i), ECF No. 26, Exs. 1 & 2; TRO & PI Hr’g Tr. 60:4–9,
ECF No. 60.]]” with “Pl. Br. Supp. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under 18 U.S.C. § 1581(i), ECF
No. 25, Exs. 1 & 2; TRO & PI Hr’g Tr. 60:4–9, ECF No. 60.”
Page 15: On line 7 of the first paragraph, replace “[[Pl. Mem. P. & A. Supp. Pl. Mot. for TRO &
PI 10, ECF No. 21]]” with “Pl. Mem. P. & A. Supp. Pl. Mot. for TRO & PI 10, ECF No. 8”.
Page 15: On line 9 of the first paragraph, replace “[[Chamberlain’s Br. Resp. One World’s Mot.
for PI 3–4, ECF No. 79.]]” with “Chamberlain’s Br. Resp. One World’s Mot. for PI 3–4, ECF
No. 79.”
Page 16: In footnote 11, replace “[[During the PI/TRO Hearing, counsel for One World stated:
“[w]e also at that point sought to learn CBP's intentions with respect to future shipments in view
of the Court's order. We reached out to a number of the people at different ports and different
jurisdictions, but we were not able to get a response to our inquiry, so again we're unsure as to
what position they were going to take.” PRO/TI Hr’g. 23:4–10.]]” with “During the PI/TRO
Hearing, counsel for One World stated: “[w]e also at that point sought to learn CBP's intentions
with respect to future shipments in view of the Court's order. We reached out to a number of the
people at different ports and different jurisdictions, but we were not able to get a response to our
inquiry, so again we're unsure as to what position they were going to take.” TRO & PI Hr’g Tr.
23:4–10, ECF No. 60.”
Pages 16–17: On page 16, line 2 of the second full paragraph, through page 17, line 1 of the first
paragraph, replace “[[made inquiries to Customs regarding Customs’ intended treatment of
future redesigned GDO shipments.11 It is not clear from the record whether these inquiries were
made orally, or in writing.]]” with “made inquiries to Customs regarding Customs’ intended
treatment of future redesigned GDO shipments.11 It is not clear from the record whether these
inquiries were made orally, or in writing.”
Page 21: On line 6 through line 7 of the first full paragraph, replace “[[See TRO & PI Hr’g Tr.
25:24–26:3, ECF No. 60]]” with “see TRO & PI Hr’g Tr. 25:24–26:3, ECF No. 60”.
Page 21: On line 6 of the second full paragraph, replace “[[58]]” with “58”.
Page 23: On line 3 of the first full paragraph, replace “[[58]]” with “58”.
Case 1:19-cv-00017-JCG Document 173 Filed 05/06/19 Page 3 of 4

Page 23: On line 6 of the first full paragraph, replace “78” with “77”.
Page 24: On line 4 of the third full paragraph, replace “[[58]]” with “58”.
Page 25: On line 3 of the first paragraph, replace “[[Pl.’s Br. Opp. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss 9, ECF
No. 78]]” with “Pl.’s Br. Opp. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss 9, ECF No. 77”.
Page 28: On line 6 of the first full paragraph, replace “ECF No. 58” with “ECF Nos. 58, 59”.
Page 28: On line 4 of the second full paragraph, replace “78” with “77”.
Page 29: On line 3 of the first full paragraph, replace “[[ECF No. 26, Exs. 1 & 2]]” with “ECF
No. 25, Exs. 1 & 2”.
Page 29: On line 6 of the first full paragraph, replace “[[ECF No. 26, Exs. 1 & 2]]” with “ECF
No. 25, Exs. 1 & 2”.
Page 30: On line 1 through line 2 of the first paragraph, replace “[[TRO & PI Hr’g Tr. 71:18–
72:3 ECF No. 60.]] with “TRO & PI Hr’g Tr. 71:18–72:3 ECF No. 60.”
Page 31: On line 6 of the first paragraph, replace “[[58]]” with “58”.
Page 32: On line 4 of the first paragraph, replace “ECF No. 78” with “ECF No. 77”.
May , 2019
Case 1:19-cv-00017-JCG Document 173 Filed 05/06/19 Page 4 of 4