Furniture Brands International v. United States

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. Wintteb ~tate5 (!Court of ~eaI5 for !be jfeberaI ([trentt FURNITURE BRANDS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee, AND UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee, AND AMERICAN FURNITURE MANUFACTURERS COMMITTEE FOR LEGAL TRADE AND VAUGHAN- BASSETT FURNITURE COMPANY, INC., Defendants-Appellees. 2012-1059 Appeal from the United States Court of International Trade in case no. 07-CV-0026, Judge Timothy C. Stanceu. ON MOTION Before REYNA, Circuit Judge. FURNITURE BRANDS INTL v. US 2 ORDER Defendants-Appellees American Furniture Manufac- turers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, Inc. (collectively, "the Committee for Legal Trade") and Defendant-Appellee United States move for summary affirmance of the United States Court of International Trade's judgment dismissing Furniture Brands International, Inc.' s ("Furniture Brands") com- plaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The United States International Trade Commis- sion responds in favor of summary affirmance. Furniture Brands opposes. The United States and the Committee for Legal Trade reply. At issue is whether this court's determination in SKF USA, Incorporated v. United Sates Customs and Border Protection, 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("SKF') , fore- closes Furniture Brand's appeal.1 Summary disposition of a case "is appropriate, inter alia, when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the appeal exists." Joshua V. United States 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 1 In SKF, this court concluded that the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (also known as the Byrd Amendment) neither violated the Constitution's equal protection guarantee nor the First Amendment. The Byrd Amendment provides for the distribution of antidumping duties collected by the United States to eligible "affected domestic producers" of the dumped goods. 19 U.S.C. § 1675c(a) (2000). An "affected domestic producer" must be "a petitioner or interested party in support of the petition with respect to which an anti- dumping duty order . . . has been entered." Id. at § 1675c(b)(1)(A). 3 FURNITURE BRANDS INTL v. US Because Furniture Brands raises issues that may not have been determined in SKF, we cannot say that a substantial question regarding the outcome of this case does not exist. Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: The motions are denied. FOR THE COURT FEB 292012 lsI Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk cc: David W. DeBruin, Esq. FILED Joseph W. Dorn, Esq. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR TH~ FEDERAL CIRCUIT Jessica R. Toplin, Esq. Patrick Gallagher, Esq. FEB 292012 s25 JAN HORBALY CLERK