Amsted Rail Co. to Appeal Attorney Misconduct Suit to Federal Circuit
Plaintiffs Amsted Rail Co., ASF-K de Mexico, Strato and TTX will appeal a Court of International Trade decision dismissing their attorney misconduct suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, according to a Dec. 22 notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Questions arose over whether the plaintiffs would actually appeal the case after the trade court rejected a proposed injunction that would bar ARC's former counsel and his firm from accessing confidential information in the underlying International Trade Commission proceeding (see 2212200033) (Amsted Rail Co. v. United States, CIT #22-00307).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The case concerns a past ITC injury investigation on freight rail couplers and parts thereof from China and a present injury investigation on the same goods from China and Mexico. ARC is a U.S. producer and importer of freight rail couplers, and originally employed Wiley, where Daniel Pickard was a partner at the time, to represent it.
After filing a petition for ARC, Pickard moved to Buchanan Ingersoll. Following a negative injury determination in the original ITC proceeding, Pickard filed a new petition naming imports from Mexico and China as the source of the injury. He did this knowing ARC had the only imports of freight rail couplers from Mexico via its maquiladora factory, ASF-K. The plaintiffs described this as a "betrayal" from Pickard and said the attorney used ARC's information -- that ARC had the only imports of freight rail couplers from Mexico via its maquiladora factory -- against it.
At the trade court, Judge Gary Katzmann dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction (see 2211160057). The plaintiffs then asked for an injunction barring Pickard and Buchanan from participating in the injury investigation at the ITC pending an appeal of the decision (see 2211210036). Katzmann denied the injunction bid since a notice of appeal had not yet been filed but said even if it had been filed, the plaintiffs failed to prove that they would likely succeed on the merits and suffer irreparable harm without the injunction.