Slip Op. 03-91
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS
___________________________________
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :
:
Plaintiff, :
: Court No.
v. : 01-01106
:
INN FOODS, INC., :
:
Defendant. :
___________________________________:
The United States (“Government”) moves this Court, pursuant to
USCIT R. 59, to reconsider its opinion and judgment in United
States v. Inn Foods, Inc., 2003 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 49, at *1,
Slip Op. 03-50 (May 13, 2003), granting defendant’s motion for
summary judgment and finding that the Government’s complaint was
time-barred. Inn Foods, Inc. (“Inn Foods”) opposes reconsideration
of this action because the Government failed to establish any
reason that would justify reconsideration.
Held: For the reasons stated below, plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration is denied.
[Government’s motion is denied.]
Dated: July 25, 2003
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; David M. Cohen,
Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United
States Department of Justice (A. David Lafer, Senior Trial
Attorney, and Michael S. Dufault) for the United States of America,
plaintiff.
Horton, Whiteley & Cooper (Robert Scott Whiteley and Craig A.
Mitchell) for Inn Foods, defendant.
Court No. 01-01106 Page 2
OPINION
TSOUCALAS, Senior Judge: The United States (“Government”)
moves this Court, pursuant to USCIT R. 59,1 to reconsider its
opinion and judgment in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc., 2003 Ct.
Intl. Trade LEXIS 49, at *1, Slip Op. 03-50 (May 13, 2003),
granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment and finding that
the Government’s complaint was time-barred. Inn Foods, Inc. (“Inn
Foods”) opposes reconsideration of this action because the
Government failed to establish any reason that would justify
reconsideration.
The procedural background of this case is set forth in Inn
Foods, 2003 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 49, at *1, Slip Op. 03-50.
DISCUSSION
The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration
lies within the sound discretion of the Court. See Union Camp
Corp. v. United States, 21 CIT 371, 372, 963 F. Supp. 1212, 1213
(1997); Sharp Elecs. Corp. v. United States, 14 CIT 1,2, 729 F.
Supp. 1354, 1355 (1990); Kerr-McGee Chem. Corp. v. United States,
14 CIT 582, 583 (1990); V.G. Nahrgang Co. v. United States, 6 CIT
1
Rule 59 states, in pertinent part, that “[a] new trial or
rehearing may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or
part of the issues . . . in an action tried without a jury or in an
action finally determined, for any of the reasons for which
rehearings have heretofore been granted in suits in equity in the
courts of the United States.” USCIT R. 59.
Court No. 01-01106 Page 3
210, 211 (1983). In ruling on a motion for reconsideration, the
Court’s previous decision will not be disturbed unless it is
“manifestly erroneous.” United States v. Gold Mountain Coffee,
Ltd., 8 CIT 336, 337, 601 F. Supp. 212, 214 (1984).
Reconsideration or rehearing of a case is proper when “a
significant flaw in the conduct of the original proceeding
[exists],” Kerr-McGee, 14 CIT at 583, such as
(1) an error or irregularity in the trial; (2) a serious
evidentiary flaw; (3) a discovery of important new
evidence which was not available even to the diligent
party at the time of trial; or (4) an occurrence at trial
in the nature of an accident or unpredictable surprise or
unavoidable mistake which impaired a party’s ability to
adequately present its case[,]
and must be addressed by the Court. Union Camp Corp., 21 CIT at
372, 963 F. Supp. at 1213 (citation omitted).
In this case, the Government argues that “reconsideration is
warranted because it was the specific, written intent of the
parties that [Inn Food’s] two-year waiver of the statute of
limitations . . . [would] be ‘effective through December 14,
2001.’” Pl.’s Mot. for Recons. (“Pl.’s Mot.”) at 1 (citation
omitted). According to the Government, Inn Foods compiled a
package of documents pertaining to this two-year waiver, and mailed
it to the United States Customs Service (“Customs”)2 in August,
2
The United States Customs Service was renamed the Bureau
of Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland
Security, effective March 1, 2003. See H.R. Doc. No. 108-32
(2003).
Court No. 01-01106 Page 4
1999. See id. at 4. Included in this package was a “corporate
resolution” prepared by Jack Randle, Secretary-Treasurer of Inn
Foods, on August 5, 1999, stating as follows:
A special meeting was called to order by Chairman of
the Board, Fred Haas. Other Directors in attendance were
Jack Randle, Carol Randle, Gail Haas and Mike Randle.
The purpose of the meeting was to obtain approval
and adoption of the Certificate of Corporate Resolution
in reference to authorizing issuance of the waiver of
statute of limitations in the matter of U.S. Customs Case
No. 1995-2305-020060-01. The waiver is made for a two-
year period commencing on December 14, 1999, and
effective through December 14, 2001.
Id. at 4-5 (quoting Attach. A2). The Government contends that this
“resolution” was “adopted at Customs’ request, and was sent to
Customs, as a package, with the waiver,” id. at 5, and, that since
this waiver was drafted, pursuant to United States v. Neman Bros.
& Assocs., 15 CIT 536, 777 F. Supp. 962 (1991), the language
employed created a waiver that was valid through the two-year
anniversary date of its commencement. See Pl.’s Mot. at 5. This
interpretation mirrors “Inn Foods’ actual intent underlying the
waiver prior to the time when the waiver’s scope was put into
controversy by Inn Foods’ filing of its motion to dismiss.” Id. at
5-6.
The Government further argues that the principle of equitable
estoppel should prevent Inn Foods from asserting a position before
the Court that contradicts its original written intent. See id. at
1-2. The Government claims that the “corporate resolution”
Court No. 01-01106 Page 5
prepared by Inn Foods and mailed to Customs clearly “induced” the
Government to believe that Inn Foods’ intent was that the waiver
would be effective through December 14, 2001, and that this belief
was indicated in an internal letter from Customs’ Chief of the
Penalties Branch to the Fines, Penalties and Forfeiture Officer.
See id. at 7 (citation omitted).
The Court, however, will not disturb its prior decision in Inn
Foods, 2003 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 49, at *1, Slip Op. 03-50, for
two reasons. First, the Court agrees with Inn Foods that the
Government’s present motion fails to demonstrate any grounds which
would justify the reconsideration of this case, but rather seeks
permission to relitigate the case. The Court in Kerr-McGee, 14 CIT
at 583, made clear that “[t]he purpose of a rehearing [or
reconsideration] is not to relitigate a case.” (Emphasis added).
Nowhere is it alleged that any of the documents cited to by the
Government in support of its current motion were recently
discovered. To the contrary, the Government admits that it had all
such documents in its possession on or about August 5, 1999. See
Pl.’s Mot. at 4-5. In light of this admission, and the fact that
Inn Foods’ original summary judgment motion properly framed and
addressed the issue of whether the plain meaning or intent of the
parties would render the waiver valid through its anniversary date,
the Government is now prevented from raising this same issue and
introducing new exhibits in a subsequent motion. The Court will
Court No. 01-01106 Page 6
not speculate as to whether the Government’s failure to address the
issue and include the “corporate resolution” and additional
exhibits in its original response to Inn Foods’ motion for summary
judgment was intentional or in error. However, the Court will
assert that a party cannot purposely or accidently exclude
documents central to the resolution of an issue and later expect
the Court to accept those same documents as grounds to reconsider
its previous decision. The discretion granted to the Court by
USCIT R. 59 is not intended to relieve a party from the negative
implications of a calculated strategic decision or sloppy work.
See North Am. Foreign Trading Corp. v. United States, 8 CIT 359,
600 F. Supp. 226 (1984), reh’g denied, 9 CIT 80, 607 F. Supp. 1471
(1985), aff’d, 783 F.2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (holding that
reconsideration is proper in certain well-established, exceptional
circumstances).
Second, the letter that the Government purports to be a
“corporate resolution” is in fact Minutes of a “Special Board Of
Directors Meeting” held on August 5, 1999, that were compiled over
a month after the execution of the waiver agreement at issue. See
Def.’s Objection Pl.’s Mot. for Recons.; Pl.’s Mot. at Attachs. A-2
& A-6. Inn Foods asserts that it received the letter from the
Fines, Penalties & Forfeitures Officer in Laredo, Texas, the same
day on which the Directors Meeting was held. According to Inn
Foods, the language contained in the Minutes (specifically that
Court No. 01-01106 Page 7
“[t]he waiver is made for a two-year period commencing on December
14, 1999, and effective through December 14, 2001") actually
reflects the language found in the letter drafted by the Customs’
Chief dated June 25, 1999. See Pl.’s Attachs. A-2 & A-5. In other
words, the letter was read into the Minutes verbatim.
The Court will not address the Government’s equitable estoppel
arguments because the Government failed to provide a shred of
evidence demonstrating that Inn Foods actively attempted to mislead
the Government or prevented the Government from bringing a timely
action. See United States v. Nussbaum, 24 CIT 185, 192, 94 F.
Supp. 2d 1343, 1349 (2000) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the
Government’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
___________________________________
NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS
SENIOR JUDGE
Dated: July 25, 2003
New York, New York