Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released one precedential opinion, one nonprecedential opinion, and three nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion comes in an antidumping case appealed from the Court of International Trade. The nonprecedential opinion comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims concerning breach of contract and employment claims. As for the orders, one transfers a case to the Southern District of Ohio, and the other two dismiss an appeal and a petition. Here are the introductions to the opinions and the transfer order as well as links to the dismissals.
Tenaris Bay City, Inc. v. United States (Precedential)
In 2021, a coalition of domestic producers filed a petition urging the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to investigate whether steel pipes imported from Argentina were being “dumped” in the United States, i.e., sold at less than fair value. The ensuing investigation vindicated the petition, and Commerce imposed antidumping duties on the Argentine imports. This case isn’t about that ultimate determination, but instead concerns a threshold question: whether the petition that kicked off the investigation was filed “by or on behalf of the industry.” 19 U.S.C. § 1671a(c)(1)(A)(ii). Because substantial evidence supports Commerce’s determination that it was, we affirm.
Strong v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Nathan Strong appeals a final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims. The trial court dismissed Mr. Strong’s complaint for failure to plausibly allege breach of contract or otherwise state a claim for which the trial court could grant relief and because certain of his claims belonged at the Merit Systems Protection Board. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and dismiss-in-part.
Thompson’McCarley v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential Order)
Mallie A. Thompson’McCarley filed an appeal at the Merit Systems Protection Board challenging her removal from federal service. The Board dismissed her appeal as untimely filed. Ms. Thompson’McCarley filed a petition for review of that decision, and her filings indicate that she raised a discrimination claim before the Board and wishes to continue to pursue that claim. See ECF No. 5 at 3. Responding to this court’s show cause order, the Board urges transfer. Ms. Thompson’McCarley requests transfer “to the appropriate court jurisdiction.” ECF No. 13 at 1.