Slip Op. 09 - 102



## UNI TED STATES COU

RT OF INTERNATIO

NAL TRADE

: GI L DA I NDUSTRI ES, I

NC., : : Plaintiff, : : and : : NESTL É WATERS NORTH AMERI CA, I NC., : : Plaintiff-Interve nor, : : v. : Be fore MUSG RAVE, Senior Judge : Court No. 07-00474 UN I TE D ST AT ES, : : De fe nd ant. : :
OP IN ION AN D O RD ER [Denying pla intiff’s motion to vacate de nial of motion for cla ss cer tification.] September 18, 2009 Peter S. He rrick

for the pla intiff. Hogan &Hartson, LL P (

J on ath an T. S

toe l and Cra ig A . Le wis ) for the plaintiff-inter

venor. Ton yW est , A ssi sta

nt A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Jeanne E . Davidson , Direc tor, Patricia M. McCarthy , Assistant Direc t o r, Civil Division, Com merc ial L itigation B ranc h, United States Depa rtment of Just ice (

David S. Silverbrand

); Off ice of the Gene ral Counsel for the United States Trade Represe ntative ( W

ill iam Bu sis ), of c ounsel, for The United States of Amer ica. MUSG RA V E , Se n io r

Ju d g e : P la inti f

f G il d a In d u s tr ie s , In c . ( “ G il d a ” ) moves pursuant to USCI T Rule 60(b)( 6) t o vacate t he portion of the Court’ s May 14, 2008 order

denying Gilda’s motion for cla ss cer tificati o n with respec t to challeng ing the reta liatory tariff s imposed pursuant to the EC–B eef Hormones dispute, familiarity with which is pr esumed. Cf. Slip Op. 09-58Court No. 07-00474 Pag e 2

(June 16, 2009) with Implem entation of W TO R ecom mendations Concerning EC–Me a s u r es Co n c e r n i n g

Me a t a n d Me a t P r o d u ct s (Ho rmo n es

) 6 4 F e d

. Re g . 4 0 6 3 8 ( O f f ic e o f th e U
. S. T r ade Re pr e se ntativ e , July 27 , 19 99 ) (n oti c e of imp os iti on of 10 0 pe rc e nt a d va lor e m dutie s on cert a in

art ic le s) . G ild a ’s mot ion ide nti fi e s 13 c omp la int s f ile d a ft e r e ntr

y of jud g me nt i n G ild a ’s fa

vo r. Th is

new c ircumstance , Gilda claims, justifies the relief i t reque sts. The gove rnment opposes the moti on on the g round that this is the only new “ issue” ra ised, and that the motion otherwise mere ly seeks to r e -l iti g ate argume nts pr e vio us ly re je c te d b y the c ourt
. USC I T Ru le 23 (c ), wh ic h is mod e le d o n th e F e de r a l R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d

ur e , p e rm its alteration or amendment of a n order with respec t to cl as s ce rt ification “be fore the dec ision on the merits.” This cour

t rea ched a

decision on the mer its of Gilda’s ca se. A cour t may not decide the merits first and then c ertify a cla ss. I t i s no more a pp ro pr iate to ce rt if

y a c la ss a ft e r a

de te rm inatio n th at se e ms f avo ra ble to t he c la ss than it would be t o ce rt i fy a class for the purpose of

binding c lass members by an a dv e rs e jud g me nt p re vio us ly re nd e re d wi tho ut t

he pr ote c tio ns that f

low fr om c la ss cer tification. Preliminary Draft of Proposed Amendm ents to the Fede ral Rules of Bankruptcy, Civil and Criminal Procedur e a n d R ules of Evidenc e , 201 F.R.D. 560, 611 (Committee on Rules of Prac tice and Procedur e of the J udicial C onfer ence of t he United States, Aug
. 1, 2001). SeeAdvisory Commi ttee Note to 2003 amendme nts to Rul e 23(c ) of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roc edure (“F RCP ”). Cf

. FRCP Rul e 23 (c) ; 1966 Advisory Commi ttee Note to amendments to Rule 23(c) ( reje ctingthe prac tice of “ one-w ay

intervention”) . Gilda’s motion must t here fore be, and it her eby is, denied. SO OR DE RE D
. Dated: Septembe r 18, 2009 /s/ R. Kenton Musgra ve Ne w Y o rk , Ne w Y o rk R
. KE NT ON M US GR AV E , S en i o r J u d ge