Houston Shutters LLC v. United States

Slip Op. 26-6
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
HOUSTON SHUTTERS LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
Before: Leo M. Gordon, Judge
Court No. 24-00175
OPINION and ORDER
[Granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss.]
Dated: January 29, 2026
Jordan 	C. 	Kahn, 	Grunfeld, 	Desiderio, 	Lebowitz, 	Silverman 	& 	Klestadt 	of
New York, N.Y., argued for Plaintiff Houston Shutters LLC. With him on the brief was
Alan R. Klestadt.
Emma E. Bond, Senior Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
U.S. Department of Justice, of Washington, D.C., argued for Defendant United States.
With her on the briefs were Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M.
McCarthy, Director, Claudia Burke, Deputy Director. 	Of counsel was Ruslan Klafehn,
Attorney, 	Office 	of 	the 	Chief 	Counsel 	for 	Trade 	Enforcement 	and 	Compliance,
U.S. Department of Commerce, of Washington, D.C.
Gordon, Judge: This matter involves Plaintiff Houston Shutters LLC’s challenge to
the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) decision not to initiate a changed
circumstances review 1 with respect to whether wood shutter components were within the
1 “A changed circumstances review is a statutorily required administrative process
whereby Commerce, upon request, must review a final affirmative determination resulting
in an antidumping [or countervailing] duty order if an interested party has demonstrated
the existence of changed circumstances sufficient to warrant review.” Trs. in Bankr. of N.
Am. Rubber Thread Co. v. United States, 30 CIT 1537, 1538 n.3, 464 F. Supp. 2d 1350,
(footnote continued)
Case 1:24-cv-00175-LMG Document 38 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 3

Court No. 24-00175 	Page 2
scope of the investigation covering millwork products from the People’s Republic of
China. Plaintiff brings its challenge in the form of two separate actions seeking the same
relief on the same facts, albeit under different jurisdictional predicates. Compare Compl.,
ECF No. 8 (action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c)), with Compl., Court No. 1:24-00193 (action
under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)).
Before the court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss this action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to USCIT Rule 12(b)(1). 	See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF
No. 24; see also Pl.’s Resp. in Opp’n, ECF No. 26; Def.’s Reply, ECF No. 28. The court
held oral argument. See Oral Arg., ECF No. 36 (May 29, 2025).
In its response, Plaintiff forthrightly acknowledges that “Plaintiff has all along been
willing to stipulate that jurisdiction properly lies under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i), but maintained
this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(c) to protect against the possibility that Defendant
would seek to dismiss both appeals.” Pl.’s Resp. at 8; see also Oral Arg. at 19:37–20:10
(noting that Pl. has “all along been willing to stipulate that jurisdiction lies under [1581(i)]”
as “better jurisdictional basis”). 	Therefore, upon consideration of Defendant’s motion to
dismiss, 	Plaintiff’s 	response 	acknowledging 	the 	impropriety 	of 	jurisdiction 	under
§ 1581(c), and all other papers and proceedings had in this action; and upon due
deliberation; it is hereby
ORDERED that the Defendant’s motion to dismiss this action, ECF No. 24, is
granted; and it is further
1352 n.3 (2006), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 593 F. 3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing
19 U.S.C. § 1675(b)(1)).
Case 1:24-cv-00175-LMG Document 38 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 3

Court No. 24-00175 	Page 3
ORDERED that this action is dismissed.
/s/ Leo M. Gordon
Judge Leo M. Gordon
Dated: January 29, 2026
New York, New York
Case 1:24-cv-00175-LMG Document 38 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 3