Case ID: ct-intl-trade_9/html/0519-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Watson, Judge:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Armstrong Rubber Co., et al., plantiffs v. United States, et al., defendants
    Court No. 84-10-01444
    Before Watson, Judge.
    
    (Decided October 18, 1985)
    
      Lynn M. Schlitt, General Counsel; Michael P. Mobile, Assistant General Counsel and Brenda A. Jacobs, for defendant U.S. International Trade Commission.
    
      
      Frederic L. Ikenson, P.C. (Frederick L. Ikenson of counsel) for plaintiffs.
    
      Arnold and Porter (Robert E. Herzstein, Thomas B. Wilner and Alan O. Sykes) for defendant-intervenors Hankook Tire Manufacturing Co., et al.
    
   Watson, Judge:

This motion for a stay pending appeal raises the same issues as were recently discussed in American Grape Growers Alliance v. United States, 9 CIT 505, Slip Op. 85-104 (Oct. 7, 1985).

Here too, the Court finds that there is a fair possibility of damage to plaintiffs from the granting of a stay, in terms of the continued deprivation of an administrative investigation into their alleged injury. There is no comparable harm to anyone else, and a strong public interest in the uninterrupted progress of these investigations.

For these reasons, the motion for a stay is denied.