CAFC Denies Bid to Speed Up Briefing in Attorney Conflict-of-Interest Suit
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a Jan. 23 order denied plaintiff-appellants' motion for an expedited briefing schedule in an attorney conflict-of-interest case. Peter Marksteiner, clerk of the court, said that while the appellants, led by Amsted Rail Company, could "self-expedite the filing of their briefs," they failed to show that an expedited briefing was necessary (Amsted Rail Company v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-1355).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
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, a U.S. producer and importer of freight rail couplers, 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 case, Pickard filed a new petition naming imports of freight rail couplers from Mexico and China as the source of the injury, knowing ARC had the only imports from Mexico via its maquiladora factory. The plaintiffs described this as a "betrayal" by Pickard, and said the attorney used ARC's information against it.
CIT dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction (see 2211160057). The plaintiffs appealed to the Federal Circuit, arguing in their opening brief that CIT had jurisdiction under Section 1581(i), the court's "residual" jurisdiction (see 2301170052). The appellants also filed for an expedited briefing schedule, saying they will suffer irreparable harm if their claims against Pickard are not heard prior to when the ITC reaches its final conclusion.
In response, the Coalition of Freight Rail Coupler Producers argued the appellants have not pleaded irreparable harm "with any specificity or otherwise made any showing of irreparable harm" (see 2301200028). The appellants also couldn't have been harmed by the information allegedly shared with Pickard and Buchanan during the preparation of the petitions because ARC "is not the adverse foreign producer" but rather the maquiladora factory, which wasn't a client of Pickard's.