Georgetown Steel Co. v. United States, No. 02-00739 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on April 1, 2003.
Download PDF
Slip Op. 09 - 25 A M E N D E D J U D G M E N T UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE Thomas J. Aquilino, Jr., Senior Judge - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x GEORGETOWN STEEL COMPANY, LLC et al., : Plaintiffs, : v. : UNITED STATES, Court No. 02-00739 : Defendant. : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x The court having entered judgment dismissing this action pursuant to its slip opinion 05-43, 29 CIT 373 (April 1, 2005); and the plaintiffs having interposed a motion for rehearing; and the court having granted that motion to the extent of vacation of the judgment of dismissal herein pending entry of final judgment in Court No. 01-00955, a related action then sub nom. Co-Steel Raritan, Inc. et al. v. U.S. Int l Trade Comm n; and the court in conjunction with the grant of plaintiffs motion having issued slip opinions 07-7, 31 CIT (Jan. 17, 2007), and 07-165, 31 CIT (Nov. 8, 2007), remanding that related matter to the defendant International Trade Commission; and that defendant having filed the results of that remand, which have been affirmed by the court pursuant to its slip opinion 08-130, 32 CIT (Nov. 25, 2008), Court No. 02-00739 Page 2 sub nom. Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc. et al. v. U.S. Int l Trade Comm n; and the intervenor-defendant Saarstahl AG in the aboveencaptioned action having now interposed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to the court s slip opinion 05-43 herein and the final judgment of affirmance entered in Court No. 01-00955 pursuant to slip opinion 08-130; and neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant or other intervenor-defendants having interposed any opposition to that motion; Now therefore, after due deliberation, it is ORDERED that the motion of intervenor-defendant Saarstahl AG for summary judgment be, and it hereby is, granted; and it is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of dismissal of this action on April 1, 2005 be, and it hereby is, reinstated. Dated: New York, New York April 1, 2009 /s/ Thomas J. Aquilino, Jr. Senior Judge
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
