UN ITED STA TES , Plaintiff,
v. TIP TOP P ANTS, INC. ,

and SAA D N IG RI , De fe nd ants . Slip Op. 10-5

UNITED STAT ES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Before: Tim othy C. Stanceu, Judge Court No. 07- 00171

OP IN ION AN D O RD ER [Dism issing def

endant Nigri from the a ction and deny ing pla intiff’s motion for summary jud g me nt] Dated: January 13, 2010 Ton yW est , Assistant Attorney

Gene ral, JeanneE. Davidson , Direc tor, Patricia M. McCarthy , Assistant Director , Commercial L itigation B ranc h, Civil Division, United St ates Depa rtment of Just ice (

David M. H

ibey and Me re dy th C

. H av as y ); Chris Y

okus , Offic e of the Assistant Chief Counsel, United States Custom s and B order Protection, of counse l, for plaintiff. Ba llo n S tol l B ad e r &Nad le r, P. C. ( Vano I. Haroutunian ) f or de fe nd ants . Stanceu, Judge : Plainti ff br oug ht this action under Section 592 of the Tarif f Ac t of 1930,
as ame nded, 19 U.S.C. § 1592 (2006) (“ Section 592”), to re cover from def endants Tip Top Pants, I nc. (“ Tip Top”) a

nd Saad Nig ri a c ivil penalty of $55,636.90 and duties of $1,640.53, plus interest, for

alleg ed mater ial false statements or ac ts, or materia l omissi ons, made in conne ction wi th a sin g le e ntr

y of a pp are l ma de in 2 00 2. Com pl. ¶¶ 1, 3, 8. De fe nd ants make an unti me ly motion to di smiss t he complaint ag ainst Nig ri for f ailure to state a

claim upon which r elief c an beCourt No. 07- 00171 P age 2

g ra nte d. No tic e of

Mo t. t o D ism iss the Com pl. a g a ins t Sa di N ig ri fo r F a ilure to S tate a Cla im upon which Relief Ca

n Be Gra nted pursuant to USCI T R. 12(b)(5) , at 1 (“ Mot. to Dismi ss”). Pla int if f m ov e s f or summa ry jud g me nt a g a ins t bo th d e fe nd ants to r e c ov e r o n it s p e na lty c la im, for whic h it alleg es a de g ree of culpa bility of neg lige nce. Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J . (“Pl.’s Mot.). Be cause plaintiff has fa iled to demonstrate that it is entitled to a judg ment as a matter of law , the court de nies plaintiff’s motion. Be cause the complaint fa ils to st ate a claim under

Section 592 ag ainst Nig ri upon which re lief ca n be g rante d, and bec ause pla intiff has maintained its ac tion
a g a ins t N ig ri on

that c omp la int , th e c ourt su a s po ntedis mis se s N ig ri a s a pa rt y de fe nd ant. I. B ACKG ROUND Th e c ourt se ts f or th b e low the pr oc e dura l ba c kg ro un d o f t his c a se and

ide nti fi e s c e rt a in uncontested f

acts re levant to the cour

t’s consideration of the two pendingmotions, as established by the va ri ou s su bmi ssi on s. A. The Entr

y of the Mer chandise for Consumption in 2002 An entry for c onsumption was filed with United States Customs and B order Protection (“Customs”) in 2002 at the por t of L are do, Texas for a shipment fr om Mex ico of 954 dozen of men’s denim cotton shorts and pa nts and 960 dozen of boy s’ denim cotton shorts. Pl.’s Statement of Mater ial Fa cts pursuant to Rule 56(h)( 1) ¶¶ 1-2 (“ Pl.’s St atement of

Materia l Fa cts”); Pl.’s Mot. app. at 25-28 ( setting f orth the entry

summary form and c ommercia l invoices). The e ntry summary form for the shipment showed a total e ntere d value of $215,398 and a date of entry of May 24, 2002; it li sted as the importer of re cord “ Tip Top Pant I nc, 1407 B roadw ay Suite 521, New Yor

k, NY 10018.” Pl.’s Mot. app. at 25. The for m set forth a ta

riff c lassification of Subheading6203.42.4050, Har moniz ed Ta

riff Sche dule of the United States (“HT SUS”)Court No. 07- 00171 P age 3

Sub he a din g98 02 .0 0. 90 00 pr ov ide d d uty -f re e tr e atme nt f

or a pp are l g oo ds a sse mbl e d in 1 Me xico fr om f

a br ic c omp on e nts wh oll y

fo rm e d a nd c ut i n th e Un ite d St ate s, su bje c t to c e rt a in conditions. Subheading 9802.00.9000, Har moniz ed Ta

riff Sche dule of the United States (“ HT SUS ” ) ( 20 02 ); seeCha pte r 9 8, Sub c ha

pte r I I , U .S. No te 4, HT SUS
. (2002) f or the men’ s appar el items and Subheading6203.42.4060, HTSUS for the boy s’ shorts. Id. app. at 25- 26. Both provisions wer e subjec t to a Gene ral (MF N) duty rate of 16.8% ad valorem ; g oo ds c la ssi fi e d th e re un de r t hat qu a lif ie d a s o ri g inatin gg oo ds un de r t he No rt h Americ an F ree Trade Ag ree ment (“N AFT A”) Implementation Act, as pr ovided for in Ge nera l No te 12 , H TSU S, w e re e lig ibl e fo r d uty -f re e tari ff tr e atme nt. Sub he a din g62 03 .4 2. 40 , H TSU S; Subheading9802.00.9000, HTSUS; Genera l Note 12, HTSUS. The entr y summary form made a claim for duty -fr ee tr eatment unde r Subheading9802.00.9000, HTSUS. Pl.’s Mot. app. 1 at 25-26. B. The Customs For

m 28 Request for Information and the Customs For m 29 Notice of Proposed Action On No ve mbe r 1 9, 20 02 , Cu sto ms i ssu e d to Ti p T op a re qu e st f or inf or matio n ( “ Cus tom s For m 28”) re questing various items of docume ntation pertainingto the subject entry . Pl.’s Statement of Mater ial Fa cts ¶¶ 3- 4; Pl.’s Mot . app. at 10- 11. The Customs Form 28 also stated as follows: “Due to the fac t that this office is alre ady revie wingy our invalid claims, you are no longe r elig ible for the pr ovisions set forth under 19 CF R 162.74.” Pl.’s Mot. app. at 11. The provisions of the Customs R egulations to which the Customs Form 28 cited ar e proc edure s for prior disclosure s made a ccor ding to, inte r a lia , Section 592(c)
. Id. ; see19 U.S.C. § 1592(c)(4) ; 19 C.F.R. § 162.74 (2002). On J anuar

y 16, 2003, Customs issued a notice of proposed a ction (“Customs Form 29” ) stating that it was proposing to disallow Tip Top’s claim for pr efe rential tar iff tre atment underCourt No. 07- 00171 P age 4

Subheading9802.00.0090, HTSUS due to Tip Top’s failure to respond to the Customs Form 28 and allowingTip Top twenty day s to supply

the documentation previously reque sted. Pl.’s Statement of Mater ial Fa cts ¶ 4; Pl.’s Mot. app. at 12. The Customs Form 29 also c ontained the fo llo wi ngstate me nts : “ Th is o ff ic e wi ll b e dis a llo wi nga ll 9 80 2. 00 .9 00 0 c la ims , a nd dutie s w ill be asse ssed at the g ener al rate of duty . Your fir m has made f

alse c laims under this prog ram a nd is subject to possible penalties.” Pl.’s Mot. app. at 12.

C
. T h e A dm i n i s tra t i v e P en al ty an d P ro t es tP ro ce ed i n gs Cus tom s is su e d a

pr e -p e na lty

no tic e to T ip T op on

Ma y 7, 20 03 , c iti ng“ mate ri a l f a lse statements, ac ts and/or omissions,” “HTS 9802.00.9000,” an a lleg ed degree of culpa bility of neg lige nce, a

nd a propose d penalty

of $55,636.90, which it desc ribed a s “two (2) times the potential loss of reve nue.” Pl.’s Mot. app. at 14; Pl .’s Statement of Mate rial F acts ¶ 5. I n the
se c tio n o f t

he pr e -p e na lty

no tic e la be le d “ Mate ri a l F a c ts E sta bli sh ing Vi olatio n, ” the pr e -p e na lty notice cited only

one fa ct, Tip Top’s fa ilure to respond to the Customs Form 28 “ reque sting documentation to substantiate the 9802 c laim.” Pl.’s Mot. app. at 14. Even thoug h the notice
wa s a pr e -p e na lty

no tic e , a nd no t a c la im f or pe na lty , th e no tic e state d: “ I mpo rt e r h a s f a ile d to respond r esulting in e ntry beingrate advanc ed in the sum of $27,818.45 and pe nalty assessment.” Id. Tip Top filed a r esponse to the pr e-pe nalty notice on June 26, 2003. Pl .’s Mot. app. at 15-20; Pl.’s St atement of

Materia l Fac ts ¶ 6. Amongother a rguments, the response claimed that the appar el items on the entry at issue “we re . . . e ntere d duty -fr ee a s products of Me x ico elig ible for duty -fr ee tr eatment unde r the provisions of the N orth Americ an F ree Trade Ag ree ment (‘NA FTA ’)” and that “[t]he entry in question was filed on the ba sis of a NAF TA blanke tCourt No. 07- 00171 P age 5

The c ourt is unable to deter mine from the submitted documentation how the duties upon 2 liquidation were de termined. I f the mer chandise wer e dutiable without the bene fit of pre fer ential tari ff tr e atme nt u

nd e r G e ne ra l N ote 12 , H TSU S or Sub he a din g98 02 .0 0. 90 00 , H TSU S, i t w ou ld appea r fr om the information set for th on the entry

summary that the duties owed w ould have been $36,186.86, ba sed on an e ntere d value of $215,398 and a duty

rate of 16.8% ad valorem
. SeePl.’s Mot. for Summ . J . (“Pl.’s Mot.) app. at 25-26 (settingforth the e ntry summary ); Subheading6203.42.40, HTSUS. Pl aintiff’s USCI T Rule 56(h) submission contains the statements that “[o]n J uly 18, 2006, Tip Top paid a por tion of the duties owed, or $33,842.45” and that “[a]s of this filing, Tip Top still owes $1,695.36 in duties and interest.” Pl.’s Statement of Mater ial Fa cts pursuant to Rule 56(h)( 1) ¶ 13 ( “Pl.’s Statement of Mater ial Fa cts”) ( citing Pl.’s Mot. app. at 122). Plaintiff submitt ed printed r esults of two bill number querie s, one date d Dec ember

28, 2006, Pl.’s Mot. app. at 122, and one dated September 9, 2006, id. app. at 123. The for mer indicates that three separ ate bill numbers apply to the entry

at issue in this case, one of which is desig nated a s “void.” Id. a pp . at 12 2. Th e latte r i nd ic ate s, fo r o ne of tho se thr e e bil l numbers, a “ total bill amount” of $33,842.45 and a “ paid amount” of $33,842.45. Id. app. at 123. That amount is t he sum of an indicated “pr incipal amount” of $28,056.70 and an indicated “ interest amount” of $5,785.75. Id. Th e De c e mbe r 2 8, 20 06 bil l numbe r q ue ry re su lt sh ow s an unp a id b a lanc e on a thi rd bil l of $1 ,6 95 .3 6, but th is a

mou nt i s d e ri ve d f

ro m th e fi rs t bi ll indicated, whic h is designated there on as “void.” Id. app. at 122. Certificate of Or igin, c overingthe per iod of J anuar y 1, 2002 throug h Dec ember 31, 2002 . . . .” Pl.’s Mot. app. at 17. Followingthe liquidation of the entry on April 4, 2003, Tip Top filed a pr otest and reque st for fur

ther re view on June 30, 2003. Id. app. at 76- 82. The prote st contested “the 2 decision of Customs to deny duty -fr ee tr eatment to the mer chandise imported and e ntere d under th e c ap t i o n eden try

un d er HT S US s u

b h ea d i n g 9 8 0 2
. 0 0
. 9 0 0 0 , an d un d er s u b h ea d i n gs 62 03 .4 2. 40 50 [or ] 620 3. 42 .4 06 0, a s q ua lif yingpr od uc ts o f M e xico un de r N AF TA(N or th Americ an F ree Trade Ag ree ment)” a nd the assessment of

duties at 16.8% ad valorem
. Id. app.
at 77 . T he su

bmi ssi on s o f t

he pa rt ie s d o n ot i nd ic ate wh e the r C us tom s h a s r ule d o n th e pr ote st. Customs issued a cla im for a c ivil penalty in the amount of $55,636.90, in the for m of a notice of pe nalty

(Customs Form 5955A) dated Octobe r 6, 2003 and a cover letter dated October 7, 2003. Pl.’s Mot. app. at 60-62; Pl.’s St atement of Materia l Fac ts ¶ 9. The notice ofCourt No. 07- 00171 P age 6

penalty stated that Tip Top “e ntere d or ca used to be e ntere d merc handise into the commer ce of the United States by

means of material fa lse statements, ac ts and/or omissions.” Pl .’s Mot. app.
at 62 . T he no tic e of

pe na lty c ite d, a s th e re a so n f

or the “ pe na lty

a sse ssm e nt, ” Ti p T op ’s fa ilure to respond to the Customs Form 28. Id. The c over le tter stated a s the basis for the assessment of a pe na lty that “ [a]lt

ho ug h th e e ntr

y is b e ingpr ote ste d, and

y ou c la im a c or re c t N AF TACe rt if

ic ate of Orig in submit ted [ sic ], w e fi nd that th e fa ilure to p ro vid e the Ce rt if ic ate wi thi n th e tim e allowed is mater ial to the order ly and prope r asse ssment and collec tion of duties by Customs and Bor der Protec tion and demonstrates ne g lige nce.” Id. app. at 60. On Novembe r 4, 2003, Tip Top filed with Customs a petition seekingcanc ellation or substantial miti g ation of the pe nalty . Pl.’s Mot. app. at 63-64 (settingforth Letter from Follick & Be ssi c h to Bu re au of C

us tom s &Bo rd

e r Pro t. 1-2 (Nov. 4, 2003) (“Petition”)) ; Pl.’s S tatement of Materia l Fac ts ¶ 10. Tip Top advanc ed var ious arguments in its petit ion, amongwhich wa s that the fa ilure to respond to the Customs Form 28 wa s the fault of its fre ight f orwa rder , South Tex as International (“STI ”) of

L are do, Texas, upon whom Tip Top relied to maintain the re quired
r e c o r d s an d

r e s p o n d t o th e r e qu e s tf

o r i n f o r m at i o n . P l
. ’ s M o t . a

p p . at6 5
- 6 6 ( P e t i t i o n3
- 4 )
. It also argued that the mer chandise at issue qualified f or duty -fr ee tr eatment unde r Subheading9802.00.9000, HTSUS, that documentation, althoug h filed late, e stablished that the
merc handise wa s entitled to duty -fr ee ta riff tre atment, and that Tip Top ha d claimed duty -fr ee entry under N AFT A on the basis of f acts, c ircumstance s, and docume nts (albeit late f iled) that
su pp or te d s uc h e ntr

y . Pl .’ s Mo t. a

pp . at 66 -6 9 ( Pe tit ion

4- 7) . A lth ou g h a

rguin gthat no pe na lty
was wa rra nted, it also argued that any penalty should be ca

ncele d or substantially

mitigated beca use of Tip Top’ s excellent compliance rec ord, bec ause this was Tip Top’ s first experienceCourt No. 07- 00171 P age 7

with importing merc handise duty -fr ee unde r NAF TA, and be cause of Tip Top’s re liance “ upon profe ssionals, customs brokers and f reig ht forwa

rder s who held themselves out a s qualified and inf or me d in ha nd lin gNA F TAimp or

tatio ns and

the ir do c ume nta

ry re qu ir e me nts .” Pl. ’s Mo t. app. at 69 ( Petition 7). The documentation submitted as evidenc e in support of plaintiff’ s motion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt c on ta ins no de c isi on by Cus tom s r e sp on din gto t he argume nts in T ip Top’s Petition. Plaintiff’s appendix contains a sec ond Customs For m 5955A bear ing a

date of J anuar y 9, 2006, that plaintiff desc ribes as a n “ame nded pena lty

notice.” Id. app. at 121; Pl.’s Statement of Materia l Fac ts ¶ 12. The text subst antively is the same as the penalty notice date d October

6, 2003, except that the followingsentenc e wa s added: “ The fa ct that the fa bric wa s cut and assembled in Mexico disqualifies y ou from cla iming 9802.00.9000; there fore , y our HTS 9802.00.9000 claim was f alse.” Com

pa rePl.’s Mot. app. at 121 with id. app. at 60- 62. In J une 2006, Tip Top paid Customs $33,842.45. P l.’s Statement of Mater ial Fa cts ¶ 13; Pl.’s Mot. app. at 122-23. D. J u d i ci al P ro ce ed i n gs Plaintiff commence d this action by filing a summons and complaint on May 18, 2007. Wit h the conse nt of the par ties, the court e ntere d a sche duling or der on Ma y 6, 2008 and, on
sever al occ asions since then, ha s g rante d unopposed motions to ex tend dates in the sc heduling order . Discover

y was re quired to be c ompleted by Fe bruar y 27, 2009. Orde r, De c. 15, 2008. On June 9, 20 09 , d e fe nd ants mov e d to dis mis s th e c omp la int a s to Ni g ri fo r f

a ilure to s tate a

c la im upon which re lief ca

n be g rante d. Mot. to Dismi ss 1. Two day s later, plaintiff move d forCourt No. 07- 00171 P age 8

summary judgme nt ag ainst both defenda nts for a c ivil penalty

of $55,636.90 and unpa id duties and intere st of $1,640.53. Pl.’s Mot. 13. II. D I S CUS S I ON The c ourt exercises jurisdiction ac cordingto 28 U.S.C. § 1582, which gr ants the Court of International Trade exclusive jurisdiction over actions to rec over c ivil penalties claimed unde r 19 U.S.C. § 1592 and customs duties. See28 U.S.C. § 1582 (2006). A. Plaintiff Has F ailed to Demonstrate that I t I s Entitled to J udg ment as a Matter of L aw Summary judgme nt “should be re ndere d if the plea dings, discove ry and disclosure materia ls on file, and any aff idavits show that there is no g enuine issue a s to any materia l fac t and that the movant is entitled to judgment a s a matter of law.” U SCI T Rule 56(c) . The c ourt conclude s that the pleading s, discovery and disclosure materia ls on file, and af fidavit do not show that plaintiff is entitled to judgment a s a matter of law. 1. Pla int if

f H a s F a ile d to De mon str ate that Its Pe na lty Cla im A g a ins t T ip T op Was Pe rf e c te d in Acc ordanc e with the Require ments of Section 592 Plaintiff is suing under

Section 592(e) to rec over a penalty on a cla im arising f

rom the
a dmi nis tr ativ e pe na lty

pr oc e e din gthat Cu sto ms i nit iate d b y iss uin gthe Ma

y 7, 20 03 pr e -p e na lty notice. See19 U.S.C. § 1592(e); Pl.’s Mot. app. at 13-14. The undisputed fac ts plaintiff establishes in support of summary judgme nt do not demonstrate that Customs complied with the
re qu ir e me nts that Se c tio n 5 92 imp os e s. Am on gtho se statut or y re qu ir e me nts is that a

pe rs on to whom a wr itten penalty

claim is issued “shall have a re asonable opportunity under se ction 1618 of this titl e [ i.e. , 19 U.S.C. § 1618] to make re prese ntations, both oral and wr itten, seeking
re mis sio n o r m iti g atio n o f t he mon e tary

pe na lty .” 19 U. S.C. § 1 59 2( b) (2 ). Ti p T op tim e lyCourt No. 07- 00171 P age 9

Pla int if f’ s st ate me nt o f m ate ri a l f a c ts p ur su ant t o U SCI T Ru le 56 (h )( 1) do e s n ot s tate 3 that a dec ision under 19 U.S.C. § 1618 was issued. SeeP l
. ’ s S t at e m e n to f M at e r i a l F a c t s . In su pp or t of its summa

ry jud g me nt m oti on , p la int if f s tate s a s f

oll ow s: After revie w of Tip Top’s N ovember 2003 letter [ i.e. , T ip T op ’s pe tit ion in response to the written pena lty claim], Cus toms contacted c ounsel for Tip Top and re qu e ste d a

c on fe re nc e re g ard ingthe pe tit ion s f or re lie f. Cus tom s a lso reque sted that Tip Top waive the statute of limitations. I n a letter dated Fe bruar y 26, 2004, counsel indicated that the firm no long er r epre sented Tip Top and g ave Cus tom s T ip T op ’s la st k no wn ma ili nga dd

re ss, te le ph on e , a

nd fa c sim ile numbe rs . Pl. ’s Mo t. 5 . T he se a lle g atio ns are mis sin gfr om t he USC I T Ru le 56 (h )( 1) state me nt, but e ve n if they wer e pre sumed to be true, the y would not suffice . Although the statute and re g ulations gr ant a per son to whom a pena lty claim has be en issued the oppor tunity to make an or al pre sentation, they do not authorize Custom s to demand, as a condition of obtaining a dec ision on a petition for remission or mitigation, that a pe rson appe ar be fore Customs
. See19 U.S.C. § 1592(b) (2006); 19 C.F.R. § 171.3 (2009). su bmi tte d a pe tit ion fo r r e mis sio n o r m iti g atio n o f t he Oc tob e r 7 , 2 00 3 p e na lty c la im. Pl. ’s Mo t.
a pp . at 63 -7 0 ( Pe tit ion

at 1- 8) ; Pl. ’s State me nt o f M ate ri a l F a c ts ¶ 10 ; see19 C.F.R. § 171.2(b)( 2) (2009) ( allowing60 day s for submission of a petition). Section 592(b)( 2) re quires that “[a]t the conclusion of a

ny proce edingunder suc h section 1618, the Customs Service shall provide to the person c oncer

ned a written statement which se ts forth the final de termination and the f indings of fac t and conc lusions of law on which such de termination is based.” 19 U.S.C. § 1592(b)(2). Plaintiff has produce d the sec ond Customs For m 5955A, Pl.’s Mot. app. at 121, which plaintiff desc ribes in its Rule 56(h)(1) statement as a n “ame nded pena lty

notice.” Pl.’s Statement of Mater ial Fa cts ¶12. The issuance of this document does not cure the appa rent proc edura l defe ct. The statute a

nd regulations require d that Customs issue to Tip Top a re sponse to the November

4, 2003 Petition, which sought not only remission but also presente d arguments for mitigation of the pe nalty
. SeePl.’s Mot. app. at 63-70 (Petition at 1-8). Plaintiff has not shown that Tip Top withdrew its Petition or that Cust oms ever r uled on that Petition. I f ag ency action 3Court No. 07- 00171 P age 10

on Tip Top’s Petition was still pendingat the time Customs i ssued the sec ond Customs For m 5955A, and if no de cision under 19 U.S.C. § 1618 was e ver issued, the n the re quirements of the statute and the r egulations were not satisfied. See19 U.S.C. § 1592(b); 19 C.F.R. § 171.21 (2009) ( “I f a pe tition for relief r elates to a violation of section[] 592 . . . , the petitioner will be provided with a written statement settingforth the de cision on the matter a nd the finding s of fa ct and conc lusions of law upon which the de cision is based.”) . The sec ond Customs For m 5955A does not satisfy

the statutory

and re g ulatory

require ments for a

written statement se tting for th the fi na l de te rm inatio n a

nd the fi nd ing s o f f

a c t and c on c lus ion s o f l aw o n whic h th e de te rm inatio n is based. See19 U.S.C. § 1592(b); 19 C.F.R. § 171.21. On its face , the sec ond Customs For m 5955A indicates that it is not a final de termination, and it does not re spond to the points in t he Petition. SeePl.’s Mot. app. at 121. The statute spec ifies that the “written statement” issued at the conc lusion of the proce edingconducte d under 19 U .S.C. § 1618 i s to be a de termination separ ate f rom, and subseque nt to, the issuance of the written pe nalty

claim. 19 U.S.C. § 1592(b). The United States, in an a ction broug ht under Sec tion 592(e), c ommences a proce eding “for the re cover

y of any monetary penalty claimed unde r this section,” i.e. , Section 592. Id. § 1592(e) . Congr ess direc ted that Customs adjudicate the pe nalty claim in an administrative proce edingconducte d under 19 U .S.C. § 1618 and issue a written dec ision concluding that pr oc e e din gbe fo re any

re c ov e ry a c tio n is br ou g ht i n th e Court of Inte rn atio na l T ra de . 1 9 U .S. C. § 1592(b)( 2) (r equiringCustoms to issue a “wr itten penalty claim” a nd conduct ther eon a proce edingunder 19 U .S.C. § 1618). Pl aintiff has f ailed to show either

that the § 1618 proce edingtook place a

nd culminated in a wr itten decision or that some c ircumstance , not
a pp are nt f ro m th e summa

ry jud g me nt m oti on , o c c ur

re d th at c ou ld h ave jus tif

ie d a ny fa ilure toCourt No. 07- 00171 P age 11

Ea c h s tate me nt b y

the mov ant f

or summa ry jud g me nt m

us t be fo llo we d b y

c itatio n to 4 evidenc e which w ould be admissible. USCI T Rule 56(h)( 4). In their opposition to plainti ff’ s motion for summary judgme nt, defe ndants include a 5 state me nt o f f

a c ts b ut d o n ot p re se nt n

umb e re d p ara g ra

ph s r e sp on din gto t

he state me nts in plaintiff’s Rule 56(h) (1) state ment. SeeUSCI T Rule 56(h)( 2); Def s.’ Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J . 2-4 (“ Def

s.’ Opp’n” ). c on du c t a § 1 61 8 p ro c e e din g . T he re fo re , p la int if f h a s n ot m e t it s b ur de n o f d e mon str atin gthat it “is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of law.” USCI T Rule 56(c)
. 2. Plaintiff’s Rule 56(h)(1) Statement Contains Unsupported Fa ctual Contentions But Was Not Contr ov e rt e d b y

De fe nd ants Plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate that the pe nalty claim on which it see ks to recove r
re su lte d f ro m a pr oc e e din gc on du c te d a c c or din gto S e c tio n 5 92 (b ) i s su ff ic ie nt, by its e lf , to pr e c lud e the c ourt

fr om gra nti ngpla int if

f’ s summa

ry jud g me nt m oti on . T he c ourt ob se rv e s in addition that the statement, made pursuant to USCI T Rule 56(h)( 1) in support of plaintiff’ s motion, contains facts a s to which there is alleg ed to be no g enuine issue to be tr ied, and the
c ourt fu rt he r o bs e rv e s th at c e rt a in o f t he se state d f

a c ts a re un su pp or te d b y pla int if f’ s c itatio ns to admissible evidence
. The c ourt notes that def endants did not file a statement satisfying the 4 require ments of USCI T Rule 56(h)( 2) to controve rt the statements in plaintiff’s Rule 56( h)(1) statement. USCI T Rule 56(h)( 3) dee ms such statements to be admitted. USCI T Rule 56(h)( 3).

5 Th e se state me nts , e ve n whe n d e e me d a dmi tte d, do no t e sta bli shthat pl a int if

f i s e nti tle d to judgme nt as a matter

of law be cause of the a

bsence of a showingthat Customs conducte d an administrative proc eedingunder 19 U .S.C. § 1618 t hat fulfilled the r equire ments of Section 592(b).Court No. 07- 00171 P age 12

Th e po rt ion

of the tr a ns c ri pt o n whic h p la int if

f r e lie s r e a ds a s f

oll ow s: 6 Q. Over sight by

Tip Top, over your broke r? A. Ido n’ t kn owmor e tha n my br ok e r, no , I

do n’ t. I re lie d o n my

br ok e r a nd Ire ly on my lawy er. Q. Do you know as much a s y our broke r? A. Me? Q. Yea h. A. Ish ou ld? My

qu e sti on . I f I

sh ou ld, I ’l l le arn , b ut I

do n’ t. Q
. O k ay. A. Ithi nk c us tom and le g a lity a sp e c t is – –

that’ s w hy

we us e the m, I

g ue ss. Pl.’s Mot. app. at 125; Nigr i Dep. 55:3-17, Jan. 15, 2009. Plainti ff submitted only pag es 1 and 55 of the de position t ransc ript with its m otion for summary judgme nt. SeePl.’s Mot. app. at 124-25. Pag es 1, 51, 53, and 54 a re a ppended to Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of its Mot ion for Summary J udg ment. SeePl.’s Reply in Supp. of its M ot. for Summ. J . Ex . A. None of the submitt ed pag es establishes the a bsence of a g enuine issue of fac t as to whether

Nig ri “did not have ove rsig ht over his broke r.” SeePl.’s St atement of Materia l Fac ts ¶ 14. Plaintiff submit s documents includingstatements by Tip Top that can be construed a s 7 (continued...) Plaintiff alleg es that “Mr . Nig ri testified that he did not have oversig ht over his broke r,” relying on a

portion of the tra

nscript, Nig ri Dep. 55:3-17, Jan. 15, 2009, of the de position plaintiff took of Nig ri. Pl.’s St atement of Materia l Fac ts ¶ 14 (citingNig ri Dep. 55:3-17, Jan. 15, 20 09 ). In th e c ite d p a ssa g e , M r. Ni g ri did no t te sti fy

that he did

no t ha ve “ ov e rs ig ht” ov e r h is br ok e r. Ins te a d, he te sti fi e d th at he did no t “ kn owmor e tha

n [hi s] br ok e r” or

“ a s mu c h a s [hi s] broker .” 6 Plaintiff also submits as an undisputed mate rial fa ct that “Tip Top . . . a dmits t hat the appar el was misclassifie d as duty fre e on May

24, 2002, and that Tip Top wa s the importer of
rec ord for this transaction,” c iting pag es 8 and 119 of the appe ndix to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgme nt. Id. ¶ 1 5 ( c iti ngPl. ’s Mo t. a pp . at 8, 11 9) . In th e c ite d p a g e s, wh ic h c on ta in Tip Top’s re sponses to plaintiff’s re quests for a dmission, Ti p Top did not make a g ener al admission that the appar el was misclassifie d as duty -fr ee. There is an admission by Tip Top that 7Court No. 07- 00171 P age 13

(...continued) 7 maintaining that the g oods qualified for duty -fr ee tr eatment unde r the NA FTA
. See, e .g. , Pl.’s Mot. app. at 17 (in which T ip Top claimed duringthe administrative pre -pena lty proce edingthat the appa rel items “we re . . . e ntere d duty -fr ee a s products of Me x ico elig ible for duty -fr ee treatment under the pr ovisions of the North Amer ican F ree Trade Ag ree ment (‘NA FTA ’)” and that “the e ntry

in question was filed on the ba sis of a NAF TA blanke t Certificate of Orig in, cover ing the period of January 1, 2002 throug h Dec ember 31, 2002”). The court is unable to f ind on the entry

summary or in other e ntry

documentation a “ written dec laration” that the enter ed g oods qualified for

NAF TA pre fer ential tariff treatment. See19 C.F.R. § 181.21 (2002). Th e su bmi ssi on s o f t

he pa rt ie s d o n ot a dd

re ss t he qu e sti on

of wh e the r d e fe nd ant T ip 8 Top filed a r etroa ctive cla im for NAF TA pre fer ential tariff treatment. See19 U.S.C. § 1520(d) (2006); 19 C.F.R. §§ 181.31, 181.32 (2003)
. the imp or te d a pp are l w a s mi sc la ssi fi e d und e r s ub he a din g98 02 .0 0. 90 00 a s d uty -f re e be c a us e Ti p Top’s broke r, J.O. Alvarez, Inc., identified the appar el with the incorr ect e ntry number. Pl.’s Mot. app. at 4-5 ( ref

err ing to pa g es 4-5 of

Tip Top Pants, I nc.’s Resp. to Pl.’s First Set of Interrog atories) . There is also an admission that the imported appa rel wa s manufac tured fr om materia l shipped in roll form from the United States to Mexico. Id. a pp . at 8, 11 9. Th is constitutes an admission that the merc handise did not meet a condition of entry

under Sub he a din g98 02 .0 0. 90 00 , H TSU S be c a us e the a pp are l it e ms w e re a sse mbl e d f ro m c omp on e nts that wer e not cut in the United States. SeeSubheading9802.00.9000, HTSUS (requiringthat the appar el g oods be asse mbled in Mex ico from f abric components wholly formed a nd cut in the United States). It is not an admission t hat the mer chandise did not qualify for duty -fr ee tr eatment as orig inating g oods elig ible for the N AFT A pre fer ence . 8 B . B e c a us e Pla int if

f’ s Co mpl a int

F a ils to S tate a

Va lid Cla im A g a ins t N ig ri , a

nd B e c a us e Pla int if f H a s Co nti nu e d th is A c tio n a g a ins t N ig ri on that Co mpl a int , th e Court Will D ism iss Nig ri as a Par

ty Def endant The c ourt next considers defe ndants’ motion to dism iss Nigr i as a pa rty defe ndant. Plaintiff argues in a footnote in its opposition to t he motion to dism iss that Nigr i has waive d anyCourt No. 07- 00171 P age 14

defe nse under

USCI T Rule 12(b) by

moving to dismiss “near ly two y ear s after

he answ ere d the
c omp la int .” Pl. ’s Op p’ n to De f. Sa a d N ig ri ’s Mo t. t o D ism iss 3 n .1 1 ( “ Pl. ’s Op p’ n” ). Pla int if f i s
corr ect that USCI T Rule 12(b) r equire s that the defe nse of f ailure to state a

claim upon which relief can be g rante d be made befor e a r esponsive plea ding, if one is allowed. U SCI T Rule 12(b). The c ourt notes, furthe r, that under the orig inal schedulingorder enter ed in this action, motions reg ardingthe pleading s were to have be en submitted by J uly 22, 2008. SchedulingOrde r, May 5, 20 08 . A lth ou g h th e Sc he du lin gOr de r w a s ame nd e d, up on joi nt m oti on

of the pa rt ie s, to
c o n t i nu e d i s c o v e r

y an d f o r o th e r r e a s o n s , th e d at e f

o r f i l i n ga m o t i o nt o d i s m i s s b a s e d

o nU S C IT Rule 12(b)(5) was not extended. SeeOr de r, De c . 1 5, 20 08 . F or bo th o f t he se re a so ns , de fe nd ants ’ m oti on

to d ism iss the c omp la int a s to Ni g ri is unti me ly . T he c ourt , th e re fo re , w ill not dismi ss Nigr i upon defe ndants’ motion. The c ourt conc ludes, neve rtheless, that the untimeliness of de fenda nts’ motion does not resolve a ll issues arising f rom plaintiff’s having br oug ht an ac tion, and havingcontinued that action, ag ainst Nig ri. The c ourt may dismiss a def

endant f rom an a ction su a s

po ntewh e n it appea rs that a plaintiff is maintaininga g roundless lawsuit ag ainst a def endant. Se e An ah e im Gardens v. U

nited States , 444 F.3d 1309, 1315 ( Fe d. Cir. 2006). I t is, of course, imprope r for any action to be maintaine d ag ainst a def endant whe re no va lid basis for such a n action could be shown. SeeUSCI T Rule 11(b)( 2)-( 3). F or the pre sent, the cour t sees no nee d to decide the qu e s t i o no f

w h e th e r p l a i n t i f f p o s s i b l y c ou ld

sh owa ba sis fo r c on tin

uin gthi s la

ws uit a g a ins t Nig ri. At this stage of the litigation, the court ca nnot rule out entirely

the possibilit y

that plaintiff still could plead a

nd prove f

acts unde r which N igr i could incur liability under Sec tion 592 andCourt No. 07- 00171 P age 15

Plaintiff would fac e a c onsiderable proce dural burde n in seekingmodification of the 9 schedulingorder

at this tim e so as to per

mit fili ngof a motion for le ave to amend the complaint. SeeUSCI T Rules 15(a) (2), 16( b)(4)
. In the text of certain plea dings, de fenda nts refe r to a pe rson named Sadi Nigri, who wa s 10 the Chairman a

nd Chief Executive Off

icer of Tip Top at the time of the subject importation and mov e fo r d ism iss a l of

Sa di N ig ri a s a

de fe nd ant. No tic e of

Mo t. t o D ism iss the Com pl. a g a ins t S a d i N i g r i f

o r F a i l ur e t o S t at e a

C l a i mu p o nw h i c hR e l i e f

C anB e G r an t e d

p ur s u an tt o U S C IT R. 12(b)(5) , at 2 (“ Mot. to Dismi ss”); De fs.’ Opp’ n 2. that plaintiff could see k leave to amend its complaint acc ording ly
. Neve rtheless, the c ourt does 9
see a need to de cide at this t ime whether an ac tion ag ainst Nig ri should be allowed to c ontinue on the ba sis se t f

or th i n th e c omp la int
. In th e c ir c ums tanc e s p re se nte d h e re , th e c ourt ’s dis mis sa l of Ni g ri a s a

pa rt y de fe nd ant i s the a pp ro pr iate re su lt. Sin c e br ing ingthi s a c tio n in Ma y 20 07 , p la int if

f h a s h a d ampl e opportunity

to conduct discove ry . I t also has had the oppor tunity to seek to ame nd its complaint but ha s n ot c ho se n to do so . Ins te a d, it h a s p ro c e e de d to mov e fo r s umm ary jud g me nt a g a ins t Nig ri on that complaint, which a lleg es as to Nig ri only one fa ct: “At all times rele vant to the matters desc ribed in the c omplaint, Saad Nig ri was the Chair man and Chief E x ecutive O ffice r 10 of Tip Top.” Compl. ¶ 6. Even if the cour t, for purpose s of consider ing the sufficie ncy of the
c omp la int a s to Ni g ri , a c c e pts a s tr

ue a ll w e ll- ple a de d f

a c ts i n th e c omp la int

and dr aws a ll
rea sonable infe renc es in plaintiff’s fa vor, the c ourt still m ust conclude that the complaint states
no c la im a g a ins t N ig ri up on wh ic h r e lie f c an b e g ra

nte d. Se c tio n 5 92 (a )( 1) (A ) p ro vid e s, in p e rt i n e n tp art , th at“ n o p e r s o n. . . m ay enter, introduce, or attem pt to enter or introduce any
me rc ha nd

iseinto th e c om me rc e of t heUn ite d S

tates by means of– ( i) any

document . . . wr itten . . . statement, or a ct which is mater ial and fa lse, or (ii) a ny omission which is m ater ial.” 19 U.S.C. § 1592(a)(1) (A) ( emphasis adde d). The c omplaint does not alleg e that Nig ri enter ed,Court No. 07- 00171 P age 16

In addition, the complaint, in its demand for re lief, see ks a judg ment ag ainst Tip Top 11 and make s no mention of Nig ri. Compl. 4. introduced, or

attempted to enter

or introduce any

merc handise into the commer ce of the United States. I t instead alleg es the fa ct that the importer of the merc handise wa s Tip Top, which is an
un c on te ste d f

a c t in thi s c a se . Co mpl . ¶

¶ 8 -9 ; Pl. ’s State me nt o f M ate ri a l F a c ts ¶ 2; P l.’ s Mo t. app. at 8, 119. Althoug h identifying N igr i as Tip Top’s Chairman a nd Chief Executive Off

icer at the time of the 2002 importation, the complaint does not a lleg e that Nig ri did, or fa iled to do, any thing whatsoever. T he complaint sets for th no fac ts upon which liability alleg edly incurre d by Ti p T op , b a se d o n n e g lig e nc e in i mpo rt ingthe me rc ha nd ise , c ou ld b e imp ute d to Ni g ri . T hu s,
no t on ly do e s p la int if

f’ s c omp la int

fa il t o p le a d f

a c ts whic h, if

tr ue , w ou ld e nti tle pla int if

f t o
re c ov e r f ro m N ig ri a

pe na lty un de r S e c tio n 5 92 , b ut i t a lso c an b e fa ir ly de sc ri be d a s f

a ili ngto state anyc la im a g a ins t N ig ri
. 11 For the re asons discussed a

bove, the c ourt is denying pla intiff’s motion for summary jud g me nt o n g ro un ds that do no t r e late sp e c if ic a lly to t he qu e sti on

of Ni g ri ’s po te nti a l li a

bil ity under Sec tion 592. Never theless, the cour

t notes that nothing in plaintiff’s motion for summar y judgme nt establishes or alleg es fa cts implicating N igr i in any violation of Section 592 that may have oc curr ed. Were the cour t not to dis miss Nigri a s a par ty defe ndant, it potentially

would be
a llo wi ngthi s c a se to g o to tr ia l a g a ins t bo th d e fe nd ants e ve n th ou g h p la int if f, de sp ite ampl e op po rt un ity , h a s f

a ile d to ple a d, de ve lop , o r s up po rt any c la im a g a ins t on e of

tho se de fe nd ants , Ni g ri , th at r e sts on

an a de qu ate ba sis in l aw o r f a c t. In opposing dismissal of Nig ri, plaintiff make s only one ar g ument other than that defe ndants’ motion to dism iss is unt imely . Plaintiff argues that “[c]orporate office rs haveCourt No. 07- 00171 P age 17

re pe ate dly

be e n h e ld l ia

ble fo r v iol atio ns that w e re c omm itt e d in the c a pa c ity of the ir
em p l o y m en t . ” P l
. ’s Op p ’n 4 (c i t i n g United States v. Priority Prods., Inc. , 793 F.2d 296, 299 (F ed. Cir. 1986), Un ite d S tates v . M att he ws , 31 CI T 2075, 2082-83, 533 F . Supp. 2d. 1307, 1313-14 (2007) , and United States v. Golde n Ship Tradi ng , 2 2 C I T 9 5 0 , 9 5 6 (1 9 9 8 ))
. Al th o u gh pla int if f i s c or re c t in its c on te nti on

that of fi c e rs of a c or po ra tio n, in s ome fa c tua l c ir c ums tanc e s, have be en held liable unde r Section 592, neither that contention nor the c ases plaintiff c ites addre ss the shortcoming in plaintiff’s ca se, appa rent fr om plaintiff’s complaint and its motion for
summa ry jud g me nt, pe rt a ini ngto a ny po te nti a l li a

bil ity of Ni g ri
. United States v. Priority Products, Inc

. is not on point . That ca se held that the f ailure by Customs to serve c orporate offic ers, dire ctors, or sha reholde rs of a

corpor ation with written prepenalty or pena lty

notices during

the administrative pena lty proce edingdoes not deprive the Court of International Trade of subject matter jurisdiction over a c omplaint ag ainst those persons to rec over a

civil penalty

orig inally

assessed a g ainst the corpor ation. Se e Pr ior ity Prod s. , 79 3 F .2 d. at 30 0. Th e c a se a lso c on c lud e s th at th e fa ilure to i nc lud e the ind ivi du a l de fe nd ants in th e p re -p en al ty

an d p en al ty n o t i ce s , wh er e t h o s e d ef

en d an t s h adac tu al n o t i ce o f t h e p ro ce ed i n g, was not a de privation of due pr ocess. Id. at 301. The c ase doe s not hold that a party ’s servingas an off icer of a c orporation at the time the corpor ation imports mercha ndise is, by

itself, sufficie nt to e sta bli shthat of

fi c e r’ s li a bil ity fo r a c ts c omm itt e d b y

the c or po ratio n th at are fo un d to be in violation of Section 592. Nor did Pr ior ity Prod uc ts involve the issue of the suf ficienc y of pleading s in an ac tion to recove r a pe nalty soug ht under Sec tion 592. Un ite d S tates v . M att he ws and United States v. Golde n Ship Tradi ng are not binding prec edent, a

nd both are rea dily

distinguished fr om this case. See Ma tth e ws , 3 1 C I T 2 07 5, 53 3 F.Court No. 07- 00171 P age 18

Sup p. 2d . 1 30 7; Golden Ship Trading , 22 CI T 950. In Ma tth e ws , corpor ate a nd individual defe ndants wer e found jointly and seve rally

liable for violations of Sec tion 592 based on fra udulent false statements of orig in that were made in the e ntry documentation to avoid pay ment of antidumping duties on imports of sili con metal f rom China. See Ma tth e ws , 31 CI T at 2076, 53 3 F . Su pp . 2 d. at 13 08 (o rd e ri ngsumma ry jud g me nt f

or the Un ite d St ate s “ [b]e c a us e De fe nd ants kn ow ing ly

and purp os e ly

mis re pr e se nte d th e c ountr y of or ig in o n th e e ntr ie s in question in order to avoid antidumping duties that would have been a ssessed upon that
merc handise by

Customs .”). The Court of International Trade cited spec ific ac ts committ ed by the individual defe ndant Matthews in fur thera nce of the fra udulent scheme and, on the pa rt of individual defenda

nt McGuire, joint ac tion with Matthews pursuant to a common plan. Id. at 2080-81, 533 F . Supp. 2d. at 1312-13. L ike Pr ior ity Prod uc ts , Ma tth e ws involved issues other tha n th e iss ue of

wh at f a c tua l a lle g atio ns a g a ins t an in div idu a l de fe nd ant s uf fi c e to a vo id dismiss al for f

ailure to state a

claim upon which r elief c an be grante d. In Golden Ship Trading , which also involved a lleg ations of fa lse statements of c ountry of orig in, the Court of International Trade denied the motion of de fenda nts to dism iss indivi dual defe ndant Wu that was made, in pa rt, under U SCI T Rule 12(b)( 5). Golden Ship Trading , 2 2 C IT at 951. In contra st to the facts of this ca se, the g overnme nt’s complaint in Golden Ship Trading alleg ed a spe cific a ct on the par t of the individual defe ndant, stating that this indi vidual “sig ned the country

of orig in declar ation falsely , stating that the country of orig in was the Dominica n Republic, and that these materia lly false statements, ac ts and/or omissions were pe rfor med without due car e and c onstitut e neg lige nt violations of 19 U.S.C . § 1592.” Id. Go lde n S hip Trading not only is disti ng uishable fr om this case but also wa s decide d prior to the dec isions ofCourt No. 07- 00171 P age 19

the Supreme Court in Be ll A tla nti c Cor p. v . Two mb ly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct . 1937 (2009). To a void dismi ssal for f

ailure to state a

claim upon which r elief can be g rante d, the “[f]actual alleg ations must be enoug h to raise a rig ht to relief a

bove the sp e c ulativ e le ve l, .
. . on

the a ssumpt ion

that a ll the a lle g atio ns in t he c omp la int

are tr ue (e ve n if doubtful in fact) .” Be ll A tla nti c , 550 U.S. at 555. In s up po rt

of its mot ion

fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt a g a ins t N ig ri , p la int if f r e ite rate s th e same
argume nts it m ake s in

op po sin gde fe nd ants ’ m oti on . Pl .’ s Re ply in S up p. of

its Mo t. f or Summ. J . 6-7. Plaintiff adds, howe ver, that “evidenc e beyond the complaint . . . shows that Mr. Nig ri was not only

the founde r, cha irman and CEO, but a lso one of two 50 per cent sha reholde rs, one of two corpor ate of

fice rs, and one of only

two employ ees f

or the c ompany .” Id. at 6. Pla int if f a lso states that “de fenda

nts do not disput e that no one at Tip Top knew or posse ssed more information than Mr. Nigri conc erningthe day -to[-] day operations of Tip Top.” Id. Plaintiff’s arguments fail in two respe cts. First, a nd most obviousl y , these a lleg ations are not in the complaint. Second, eve n wer e these alleg ations in the complaint, plaintiff still would not have pleade d or demonstrated a ba sis on which Nig ri, in his personal ca pacity , would have inc urre d any liability for a neg lige nt violation of Section 592 that Tip Top may have c ommitt ed. In summary , the cour

t will not allow thi s case to go to tria l ag ainst Nig ri on the complaint befor e it. Even if the c ourt assumes the truth of e very alleg ation made a g ainst Nig ri in plaintiff’s complaint, the cour

t stil l is left with nothing beyond Nig ri’s ser ving a s Chairman and Chief Ex ecutive O ffice r whe n Tip Top enter ed mer chandise that, the g overnme nt alleg es, wa s entere d
acc ordingto a mater ial false statement or a ct that occ urre d as a r esult of neg lige nce.Court No. 07- 00171 P age 20 III . C ONCL US I ON For the re asons discussed in the for eg oing, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgme nt and dismiss defendant Nigri from this action. OR DE R Upon consider ation of all pape rs and pr ocee dings he rein, it is here by OR DE RE D that all claims in the complaint be, a nd here by are , dismiss ed to the extent that th e y se e k r e lie f a g a ins t de fe nd ant N ig ri , who is h e re by dis mis se d f

ro m th is a c tio n a s a

pa rt y defe ndant; it is further OR DE RE D that the Clerk of the Court be, and he reby is, directed to amend the ca ption in this case to re ad “United States, Plainti ff, v. Tip Top Pants, Inc., De fenda nt”; it is further OR DE RE D that th e Rul e 56 mot ion of pla int if f f or summa ry jud g me nt b e , a

nd he re by is, DENI ED; and it is further OR DE RE D that c ouns e l f

or pla int if f, a ft e r c on su lti ngwi th c ouns e l f or de fe nd ant, sh a ll su bmi t, b y F e br ua ry 12 , 2 01 0, a

joi nt p ro po se d s c he du le to g ov e rn the re ma ind e r o f t

he se proce eding s. Should counsel be unable to a g ree upon a propose d schedule , plaintiff shall notify the cour t of that fac t by

Fe bruar y 12, 2010. /s/ Timot hy C. St ance u Timothy C. St ance u J u d g e Dated: January

13, 2010 New Y ork, Ne w York