This morning, the Federal Circuit released four opinions: a precedential opinion in a trade case addressing lack of jurisdiction, a precedential opinion in a veterans case addressing the Equal Access to Justice Act, another precedential opinion in a veterans case involving a dispute related to a transfer out of the Active Reserve Program and into the Individual Ready Reserve, and a precedential opinion in a veterans case addressing service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. Late yesterday and this morning, the court also released three nonprecedential orders, two dismissing appeals and one erratum. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals and the erratum.
United States v. Katana Racing, Inc. (Precedential)
On July 15, 2019, the United States brought an action in the United States Court of International Trade against Katana Racing, Inc. (“Katana”). In that action, the government sought to recover unpaid customs duties and fees pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1592(d). J.A. 89–94. Instead of answering the complaint, on August 30, 2019, Katana filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to United States Court of International Trade Rule (“CIT Rule”) 12(b). Among other things, Katana asserted that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to CIT Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction because the government had filed suit after the statute of limitations set forth at 19 U.S.C. § 1621 had run. Katana stated that, although it had signed a waiver of the statute of limitations on October 25, 2016, it had revoked the waiver prior to the expiration of the limitations period. J.A. 242–45. In a decision dated March 28, 2022, the Court of International Trade found that Katana had properly revoked its October 25, 2016 waiver of the statute of limitations. As a result, the court held that the government’s suit was untimely, and it dismissed the suit pursuant to CIT Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction. United States v. Katana Racing, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 3d 1296, 1314 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2022).
The government now appeals. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that the Court of International Trade erred in dismissing the government’s suit for lack of jurisdiction. We therefore reverse the court’s decision and remand the case to the court for further proceedings.
Cavaciuti v. McDonough (Precedential)
John F. Cavaciuti appeals from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“the Veterans Court”) denying his application for attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Cavaciuti v. McDonough, No. 20-8063(E), J.A. 1–5 (Vet. App. Dec. 30, 2021) (“Decision”). For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.
Johnson v. United States (Precedential)
Craig Johnson, Jr. appeals a decision from the United States Court of Federal Claims granting judgment on the administrative record. Because Mr. Johnson was not entitled to additional notice and a separation board prior to his transfer out of the Active Reserve Program and into the Individual Ready Reserve, we affirm.
Bufkin v. McDonough (Precedential)
Joshua Bufkin appeals the final decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims denying service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. Because we find no legal error in the Veterans Court’s interpretation of its standard of review and the benefit of the doubt rule, we affirm.