Ad Hoc Utilities Group v. United States , 33 Ct. Int'l Trade 1296 ( 2009 )

Slip Op. 09-99
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
AD HOC UTILITIES GROUP,
Plaintiff,
v. Before: Pogue, Judge
Court No. 06-00300
UNITED STATES,
Defendant,
- and -
USEC INCORPORATED, and UNITED STATES
ENRICHMENT CORPORATION,
Defendant-Intervenors.
Memorandum and Order
[Plaintiff’s motion for rehearing denied.]
September 15, 2009
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (Nancy A. Fischer, Joshua
D. Fitzhugh, Christine J. Sohar, Kemba T. Eneas and Stephan E.
Becker) for Plaintiff Ad Hoc Utilities Group.
James M. Lyons, General Counsel, Neal J. Reynolds, Assistant
General Counsel, Office of the General Council, U.S. International
Trade Commission (Peter L. Sultan) for Defendant United States.
Steptoe & Johnson LLP (Eric C. Emerson, Sheldon E. Hochberg,
Richard O. Cunningham, Thomas J. Trendl and Alexandra E.P. Baj)
for Defendant-Intervenors USEC Inc. and United States Enrichment
Corp.
Pogue, Judge: Plaintiff Ad Hoc Utilites Group (“AHUG”), a
group of American utility companies that purchases and uses
Court No. 06-300 Page 2
uranium, has sought review of the International Trade Commission’s
(“ITC”) decision in Uranium From Russia, 71 Fed. Reg. 44,707 (ITC
Aug. 6, 2006) (concluding that termination of the suspended
investigation on uranium from Russia would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the
United States) and accompanying Uranium from Russia, USITC Pub.
3872, Inv. No. 731-TA-539-C (Second Review) (Aug. 2006), available
at 2006 ITC LEXIS 537.
The Court, on June 16, 2009, in accordance with Ad Hoc Utils.
Group v. United States, Slip Op. 09-56, 2009 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS
60 (CIT June 15, 2009), dismissed this action, pursuant to USCIT
Rule 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 2631(c). See Ad Hoc Utils. Group v. United States, Slip
Op. 09-57, 2009 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 61 (CIT June 16, 2009). In
its decision ordering dismissal, the Court noted that the issues of
law and fact before the court are no different than those presented
in Ad Hoc Utilities Group v. United States, Cause No. 06-229
(“AHUG”) (AHUG’s challenge to Commerce’s final determination that
termination of the suspended investigation on uranium from Russia
would likely result in continued dumping of enriched uranium),
where the court also dismissed AHUG’s action for lack of statutory
standing and has further denied AHUG’s subsequent motion for
reconsideration. The parties in AHUG and the case at bar are
identical, and there is no significant argument raised by Plaintiff
Court No. 06-300 Page 3
here that was not considered by the court in AHUG.
AHUG has now moved, pursuant to USCIT R. 59, for
reconsideration of the court’s dismissal. This motion followed a
similar motion in Cause No. 06-229, which motion was denied.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in AHUG, the court DENIES
AHUG’s motion for reconsideration.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/
Donald C. Pogue, Judge
Dated: September 15, 2009
New York, New York