Ad Hoc Utils. Group v. United States, No. 06-00300 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Slip Op. 09-57 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE AD HOC UTILITIES GROUP, Plaintiff, v. Before: Pogue, Judge Court No. 06-00300 UNITED STATES, Defendant, - and USEC INCORPORATED, and UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORPORATION, Defendant-Intervenors. ORDER [Defendant s granted.] and Defendant-Intervenors motions to dismiss June 16, 2009 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (Nancy A. Fischer, Joshua D. Fitzhugh, Christine J. Sohar, Kemba T. Eneas and Stephan E. Becker) for Plaintiff Ad Hoc Utilities Group. James M. Lyons, General Counsel, Neal J. Reynolds, Assistant General Counsel, Office of the General Council, U.S. International Trade Commission (Peter L. Sultan) for Defendant United States. Steptoe & Johnson LLP (Eric C. Emerson, Sheldon E. Hochberg, Richard O. Cunningham, Thomas J. Trendl and Alexandra E.P. Baj) for Defendant-Intervenors USEC Inc. and United States Enrichment Corp. Pogue, Judge: Plaintiff Ad Hoc Utilites Group ( AHUG ), a group of American utility companies that purchases and uses uranium, seeks review of the International Trade Commission s ( ITC ) decision in Uranium From Russia, 71 Fed. Reg. 44,707 (ITC Aug. 6, 2006) (concluding that termination of the suspended investigation on uranium from Russia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States) and accompanying Uranium from Russia, USITC Pub. 3872, Inv. No. 731 TA 539 C (Aug. 2006). Defendant United States and Defendant-Intervenors move to dismiss, pursuant to USCIT Rule 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, more specifically lack of statutory standing under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2631(c). The issues of law and fact before the court are no different than those presented in Ad Hoc Utilities Group v. United States, Cause No. 06-229 ( AHUG ) (AHUG s challenge to Commerce s final determination that termination of the suspended investigation on uranium from Russia would likely result in continued dumping of enriched uranium). Parties in AHUG and the case at bar are identical, and there is no significant argument raised by Plaintiff here that was not considered by the court in AHUG. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in AHUG, the court grants Defendant s and Defendant-Intervenors motions to dismiss for lack of standing. Judgment will issue accordingly. It is SO ORDERED. /s/ Donald C. Pogue Donald C. Pogue, Judge Dated: June 16, 2009 New York, New York
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.
