United States Court of International Trade

Slip Op. 20-119

Before the Court in Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. v. United States, et. al., Court No. 20-00094 (August 17, 2020) was Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended summons and Defendants’ motions to partially dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. The case challenged the rejection of drawback claim based on the export of aircraft. On April 21, 2020 plaintiff filed a summons initiating the case under 1581(a) jurisdiction. On April 27, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint asserting both 1581(a) and 1581(i) jurisdiction, concurrently with a motion to amend the summons to reflect the 1581(i) claim. Plaintiff argued that the Court should grant leave to file an amended summons and asserted that Defendants would suffer no material prejudice from allowing amendment. Id. at 5. Defendants countered that because Plaintiff failed to file its initial summons and complaint concurrently, Plaintiff could not now amend its summons to include a 1581(i) residual jurisdiction claim. For the following reasons, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended summons, and dismissed the 1581(i) claim for lack of jurisdiction.

“USCIT Rule 3(e) provides that the court may allow a party to amend a summons ‘at any time on such terms as it deems just, unless it clearly appears that material prejudice would result to the substantial rights of the party against whom the amendment is allowed.’” Id. at 5. The Court noted the government did “not allege material prejudice” and as such granted the motion to amend the summons. Id. at 5. The Court then moved to consider the Government’s motion to dismiss the complaint, under both 1581(a) and (i) jurisdiction. “Subsection (i) is a ‘residual’ grant of jurisdiction for review of … the ‘administration and enforcement’ of claims that can be challenged under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a),” and “claims when the remedy under another subsection of 1581 would be manifestly inadequate.” Id. at 9. The Court noted that “jurisdiction is available under subsection (a)” and that under 1581(a) the Court was empowered to compel agency action, “the exact relief Spirit seeks.” Id. at 10. As such, because jurisdiction was available under 1581(a) and the remedy sought under 1581(a) was not manifestly inadequate the Court dismissed the 1581(i) claim for lack of jurisdiction. The Court then granted a motion for an extension of time to respond to the compliant under 1581(a) jurisdiction.