AR THU R C . SC HIC K , I II , and SCHICK INTERNATIONAL F ORWARDING , INC. ,

Pla int if fs , v . UN ITED STA TES , De fe nd ant. Slip Op. 09-123

UNITED STAT ES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Before: Tim othy C. Stanceu, Judge Court No. 06- 00279

OP IN ION [Denying pla intiffs’ motion to transfer a nd dismiss ing a ction for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction] Dated: Oc tober 28, 2009 Ne vil le Pe te rs on

L L P ( John M. Pe terson and Michae l T. Cone ) f or pla int if fs
. Ton yW est , Assistant Attorney

Gene ral, Barbara S. W

illiams , Attorney

in Charg e, International Trade Field Of fice , Mikk i Cott et , Senior Trial Counsel, Commercia l L itigation B ra nc h, Civ il D ivi sio n, Un ite d St ate s D e pa rtme nt o f Jus tic e ; Benjamin B. Hamlow , Offic e of Associate Chief

Counsel, United States Custom s and B order Protection, of counse l, for de fe nd ant. Stanceu, Judge : Plainti ffs Ar thur C. Schick I I I(“Schic k”) a nd Schick International For war ding, I

nc. (“ Schick International”) (“ plaintiffs”) br oug ht this action to contest the
revoc ation of Schick’s c ustoms broker’s lice nse for failure to file a timely

status report ( “triennia l
re po rt ” ) w ithCus tom s and B or de r P ro te c tio n, Un ite d St a te s D e pa rtme nt o f H ome land

Se c ur ityCourt No. 06- 00279 P age 2

(“Customs” or the “ Ag ency”) a s require d by Section 641(g ) of the T ariff Act of 1930, a s amende d, 19 U.S.C. § 1641(g) (2006). In an opinion dated De cembe r 18, 2007, the c ourt dismiss ed plaintiffs’ c omplaint for lack of subject matter jur isdiction and for fa ilure to state a claim upon which r elief c an be grante d. Schick v. United States , 31 CI T __, 533 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (2007) ( “ Schick

I ”). Plaintiffs appea led the dec ision to t he Court of Appe als for the Fe dera l Circuit (“Court of Ap pe a ls” ), wh ic h, up on

ru lin g that th e Cou

rt of Inte rn a tio na l T ra de la c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n to consider a

ny of plaintiffs’ c laims, remande d with instructions that the complaint ag ain be dismiss ed and a lso directed the court to consider whether the matter should be tr ansfe rre d, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2006), to a c ourt with appropr iate jurisdiction. Schick v. United States , 554 F.3d 992, 995- 96 (F ed. Cir. 2009) (“ Schick II ” ). Sc hic k n owmov e s to tr ans fe r t his
a c tio n to the Di str ic t Co ur t f or the Di str ic t of

Col umb ia . Pl .’ s Mo t. P ur su ant t o 2 8 U .S. C. § 1631, for Tr ansfe r to Fe d. Dist. Ct. 1 (“Pl.’s Mot.”). Pursuant to the decision in Schick II , the cour t lacks subject matter

jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs’ cla ims and must either dismiss or transfer the ac tion. Schick

II , 554 F.3d at 996. I f a court finds that ther e is a wa nt of jurisdiction, it i s to transfer the ac tion before it to any other such cour t in which the ac tion could have or igina lly been br oug ht if doing so is in the intere st of jus tic e . 2 8 U .S. C. § 16 31 . B e c a us e the c ourt

c on c lud e s th a t tr ans fe r w ou ld n ot b e in t he int e re st of justice, the c ourt will deny plaintiffs’ motion for tra

nsfer and dismiss thi s action. I. B ACKG ROUND B a c kg ro un d in fo rm atio n p e rt a ini ngto t he re vo c a tio n o f S c hic k’ s c us tom s b ro ke r’ s li c e ns e and the c ourt’s initial ruling a re se t forth in Schick

I , 31 CI T at __, 533 F . Supp. 2d at 1280-81,Court No. 06- 00279 P age 3

Plaintiffs’ fourth cla im, which rela ted to Schick International, became moot when 1 Schick International informed Customs that it had appointed a licensed c ustoms broker with a valid permit to conduct business in the L os Ang eles District. Schick v. United States , 31 CI T __,

__ , _ _, 53 3 F . Su

pp . 2 d 1 27 6, 12 79 -8 0, 89 (2 00 7) . T he re fo re , th e on ly re ma ini ngc la ims in t

his c a se are the thr e e c la ims pe rt a ini ngto t he re vo c a tio n o f S c hic k’ s in div idu a l c us tomho us e broker ’s license
. and summarized her ein. B elow, the c ourt supplements that bac kg round with a summary of
su bs e qu e nt e ve nts . In J une 2006, Customs informed plaintiffs that Schick’s c ustoms broker’s lice nse had been r evoked a s a re sult of Schick’s fa ilure to file a timely triennial re port with Custom s as require d by

19 U.S.C. § 1641(g) (1). Schick I , 31 CI T at __, 533 F . Supp. 2d at 1280-81. On August 18, 2006, plaintiffs broug ht this action in the Court of I nternational Trade , asser ting f our claims. Plaintiffs claimed, first, that the r evocation of Schick’s customs broker ’s license by C u s t o m s wa s co n d

u ct edwi th o u tth e o b s erv an ce o f s p ec i fi c p ro ce d ure s , i n cl u d i n g a h ea ri n g, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1641(d). Compl. ¶¶ 15-20. Sec ond, they claimed that the r evocation of Schick’s license deprive d Schick of due proce ss of law in violation of the Administrative Procedur e Ac t (“APA” ) and the Fifth Ame ndment. Id. ¶¶ 21- 31. Third, they claimed that the
revoc ation of Schick’s lice nse constituted an e x cessive f ine or sanc tion in viol ation of the Eig ht Amendment. Id. ¶¶ 32- 36. Their f ourth claim wa s that the proposed r evocation of Schick International’s corpor ate c ustomhouse brokera g e license and per mit on the basis of the individual license r evoca

tion would be contra

ry to law. Id. ¶¶

37 -4 0. De fe nd ant m ov e d to dis mis s 1 plaintiffs’ cla ims for lack of subject matter jur isdiction and failure to state a c laim upon which relief can be g rante d. Schick

I , 31 CI T at __, 533 F . Supp. 2d at 1280-81.Court No. 06- 00279 P age 4

In Schick I , th e c ourt he ld t hat it la c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n o ve r t

ho se of pla int if fs ’ c la ims invoking the A PA and the F ifth and Eig hth Amendments but did establish jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(4) for the claim that plaintiffs ba sed on 19 U.S.C. § 1641(d). Id. at __, __, 533 F. Supp. 2d at 1282, 1286-89. The court then c oncluded that “ no relief can be g rante d on pla int if fs ’ f ir st c la im b e c a

us e the c la im i s b a se d o n a n a rgume nt t hat is c on tr ary

to t he pla in languag e of 19 U .S.C. § 1641.” Id. at __, 533 F. Supp. 2d at 1282. The court fur ther c oncluded that Cu sto ms p ro vid e d Sc hic k d ue pr oc e ss a s r e qu ir e d b y § 1 64 1( g )( 2) be fo re re vo kin g his license, id. at __, 533 F. Supp. 2d at 1286, a nd explained that the notice and he aringprovisions of § 1641(d) (2)( B) did not apply to a re vocation under

§ 1641(g )(2)
. Id. On appe al, the Court of Appe als held that the Court of International Trade did not have jur isd ic tio n o ve r p la int if

fs ’ c la ims , h old ingthat a

c ha lle ng e to a

ny re vo c a tio n f

or fa ilure to t ime ly file a trie nnial repor

t under 19 U.S.C. § 1641(g ) does not fa ll within t he cour t’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581. Schick II , 5 54 F .3 d at 99 4- 95 . Re lyingon its de c isi on

inRetamal v. U

. S. Customs & Border Protec tion , 439 F.3d 1372 ( Fe d. Cir. 2006), the Court of Appe als held that the re vocation of Schic k’s license was not re viewable in the Court of International Trade under either 28 U .S.C. § 1581(g) or under the re sidual jurisdiction provision i n 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i). Schick II , 5 54 F .3 d at 99 4- 95 . T he Court of Ap pe a ls r e mand e d th e matte r w ithins tr uc tio ns to dismiss for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at9 9 5
. C i t i n g Butler v. United States , 30 CI T 8 32 , 4 42 F . Su

pp . 2 d 1 31 1 ( 20 06 ), the Court of Ap pe a ls a lso ins tr

uc te d th e c ourt

to consider tr ansfe r under

28 U.S.C. § 1631. Schick II , 554 F.3d at 996.Court No. 06- 00279 P age 5

Def endant a lso objects to transfe r on the g round that plaintiffs ar e dilatory in seekingit. 2 Def .’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C . § 1631, for Tr ansfe r to Fe d. Dist. Ct. 14-16. Def endant a rgues that plaintiffs wa ived their right to transfer when the c ourt, duringoral argument on the motion to dis miss, asked whethe r plaintiffs soug ht transfe r in the eve nt the court should conclude that it lacked subjec t matter jurisdiction. Id. Th e c ourt do e s n ot h ave a

va lid ba sis on wh ic h to c on c lud e that pl a int if fs , in the n in dic a tin g a t th a t ti me that th e y did no t r e qu e st (continued...) Upon re mand, plaintiffs moved to have the ca se transf err ed to the District Court for the Di str ic t of

Col umb ia , a

tr ans fe r t hat de fe nd ant o pp os e s. Pl. ’s Mo t. 1 ; D e f. ’s Op p’ n to Pl. ’s Mo t. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, for Transf er to F ed. Dist. Ct. (“De f.’s Opp’ n”). II. DI SCU SSIO N In f ulf ill ingthe mand ate of

the Court of Ap pe a ls, the c ou

rt mus t de c ide wh e the r t o transfe r this action or dismiss for lack of subject matter jur isdiction. See2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 6 3 1
. In 28 U.S.C. § 1631, Congre ss provided, in pertinent pa rt, that [w]he ne ve r a

c ivi l a c tio n is fi le d in

a c ourt . . . a nd that c ourt

fi nd s th a t th e re is a want of jurisdiction, the c ourt shall, if it is in t he intere st of justice, transfe r such action . . . to any

other such c ourt in which the a ction . . . could have been br oug ht at th e tim e it w a s f

ile d .
. . and

the a c tio n . . . sh a ll p ro c e e d a s if it h a d b e e n f

ile d in . . . the cour

t to which it is t ransf

err ed on the date upon which it was a ctually filed in . . . the court fr om which it is transfer red. Id. The tra

nsfer plaintiffs seek is wa

rra nted only “if it is in the interest of justice” and if the District Court for the District of Columbi a is the appr opriate f orum. See id. “ Th e phra se ‘i f i t is in the interest of justice’ relates to claims which ar e nonfr ivolous and as such should be de cided on the merits.” Galloway Farms, Inc. v . United States , 834 F.2d 998, 1000 ( Fe d. Cir. 1987). Fr ivolous claims involve “‘leg al points not arguable on their merits,’ or those whose disposition is obvious.” Id. (citations omitted). The c ourt conc ludes that all three of plaintiffs’ c laims are fr ivo lou s. 2Court No. 06- 00279 P age 6

(...continued) 2 transfe r and instea d would appea l if the court c oncluded that it lacke d jurisdiction, waived any ri g ht t o s e e k tr ans fe r at a

late r s ta g e of

the pr oc e e din g s. A. Plaintiffs’ Claim that a Hea ringWas Required by

§ 1641(d)( 2) I s Frivolous Plaintiffs’ first claim, which is identified in the c omplaint as “COUNT I : Violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1641(d),” is that Customs acted contra ry to § 1641(d)(2) in revokingSchick’s customs broker’ s license without followingthe notice a nd hear ing pr ocedur es set for th in that provision and there by

failed to a ffor d Schick due pr ocess of law. Compl. ¶¶ 15-20. Section 1641(d)( 2)(B ) provides f or re vocation of a

customs broker’ s license f or ca use subseque nt to disciplinary

proce eding s. See19 U.S.C. § 1641(d). I t had no applica bility to Schick’s
re vo c atio n, wh ic h w a s n ot a re vo c atio n f

or c a us e but oc c ur

re d in ste a d a c c or din g to 1 9 U .S. C. § 1641(g ) for

failure to comply

with the statutory

require ment to file a triennia l report. As the court c oncluded in Schick I , th e re vo c a tio n p ro c e dure s sp e c if ie d in su bs e c tio n ( d) (2 )( B ) a

nd tho se specifie d in subsection (g )(2) of § 1641 ar e sepa rate and exclusive. 31 CI T at __, 533 F . Supp. 2d at 1282. The Court of A ppeals a g ree d with this analy sis in ruling on the jurisdiction issue, concludingthat “[t] he ‘disciplinar y proce eding s’ that ar e cove red by section 1641(d) are treated separ ately from the pr ocee dings r elatingto the failure to file a triennia l report, whic h are addre ssed in section 1641(g ).” Schick II , 554 F.3d at 995. The statutory languag e providingfor the sepa rate revoc ation proce dures is cle ar a nd unambig uous. Be cause plaintiffs’ prof fer ed
c on str uc tio n o f t

he statut e to r e qu ir e a

he ari ngun de r § 16 41 (d ) f or re vo c a tio n und e r § 16 41 (g ) i s imp la us ibl e , th e c la im b a se d o n th is c on str uc tio n is fr ivo lou s.Court No. 06- 00279 P age 7

Se c tio n 1 64 1( g )( 2) pr ov ide s a s f oll ow s: 3 I f a pe rson license d under subse ction (b) of this section fails to file the (continued...) B. Plaintiffs’ Claim that the APA Require d an Adjudicative Hea ringI s Frivolous Plaintiff’s second c laim is identified in the complaint as “COUNT I I– Violations of the Administrative Procedur e Ac t.” SeeCom pl. ¶¶ 21 -3 1. Pla int if

fs argue that th e APA , in 5 U.S.C. §§ 554, 556, and 557 (2006), re quired Customs to conduct a hea ringat which Schick
wo uld be pr ov ide d “ the op po rt

un ity to s ub mit

fa c ts, argume nts , o ff

e rs of se ttl e me nt, or

pr op os a ls of adjustment with respe ct to the re vocation of his Customhouse broker ’s license ,” Compl. ¶ 28,
and that th e Ag e nc y ’s fa ilure to d o s o v iol a te d th e APAand de nie d Sc hic k d

ue pr oc e ss o f l aw i n violation of the Fifth Ame ndment. Id. ¶¶ 27- 29. The c ourt is unable to discer n a nonfr ivolous argument under which the APA provisions
on wh ic h p la int if

fs re ly c ou ld a pp ly to a lic e ns e re vo c a tio n und e r 1 9 U .S. C. § 16 41 (g ). Con g re ss made § 554 a

pplicable ( with cer

tain exceptions not here r eleva nt) “in eve ry

case of adjudication
re qu ire d b

ysta tute to be deter

mined on the re cord a fter oppor tunity for a n ag ency hear ing.” 5 U.S.C. § 554(a) (e mphasis added) . Although pla intiffs cite 19 U.S.C. § 1641(d) in support of their APA cla im, Com pl. ¶ 26, the cla im that § 1641(d) re quires Customs to conduct an
a dju dic ativ e he ari ngup on su sp e ns ion

or re vo c a tio n f

or fa ilure to f

ile a tr ie nn ia l r e po rt

is frivolous for the rea sons discussed previously in this Opini on. Subsection (g ) of § 1641 – purs ua nt t o w hic h Sc hic k’ s li c e ns e wa s r e vo ke d, and to whic h p la int if

fs do no t c ite sp e c if

ic a lly in this count of their complaint, seeCompl. ¶¶ 21-31 – makes no me ntion of an opportunity for a he ari ngand

do e s n ot s ug g e st, e ve n r e mot e ly , th a t a lic e ns e su sp e ns ion

or re vo c a tio n th e re un de r i s an adjudication of the ty

pe desc ribed by

5 U.S.C. § 554. See19 U.S.C. § 1641(g) (2). 3Court No. 06- 00279 P age 8

(...continued) 3 require d repor

t by Marc h 1 of the re porting y ear , the license is suspended, and may be the re a ft e r r e vo ke d s ub je c t to the fo llo wi ngpr oc e dure s: (A) T he Secr etar

y shall transmit written notice of suspe nsion to the licensee no later tha

n Marc h 31 of the re porting y ear . (B ) I f the lice nsee f

iles the requir ed re port within 60 day s of re ceipt of the Secre tary ’s notice, the lice nse shall be r einstated. (C) In the eve nt the require d repor t is not filed within t he 60-da y period, the license shall be re voked without prejudice to the filing of an application for a new lice nse. 19 U.S.C. § 1641(g) (2) ( 2006). Sections 556 and 557 ar e also inapposite, a s they set forth proc edure s for the he aring s that are require d under § 554. See5 U.S.C. §§ 556, 557. In stating the ir APA claim, plaintiffs asse rt in para g raph 29 of the complaint that “Customs’ failure to a ccor d Arthur C. Schick a hearing in a ccor dance with the APA constituted a vio latio n o f t

hat st atut e , a

nd de pr ive d h im o f d

ue pr oc e ss o f l aw, in v iol a tio n o f t he F if th Amendment to the United States Constituti on.” Compl. ¶ 29. Although this F ifth Amendment
c la im, wh e n c on str

ue d a pa rt fr om t he c la im that th e APAre qu ir e d a n a dju dic ativ e he ari ng , is only vaguely stated, the c ourt neve rtheless c onstrues it broadly in conjunction with para g raph 28 of the c omp la int , in

wh ic h p la int if

fs c la im that Sc hic k “ wa s n ot g ive n th e op po rt un ity to s ub mit fac ts, arguments, offe rs of settlement, or proposals of a djustment with respect to the re vocation of his Customhous e broke r’s lice nse.” Compl. ¶ 28. The c ourt construe s the claim to be that Customs violated the F ifth Amendment guara ntee of due proc ess in failingto conduct an
a dju dic ativ e he ari ngat w hic h f a c ts m a te ri a l to su sp e ns ion and re vo c a tio n o f S c hic k’ s li c e ns e would be dete rmined and a lternatives to re vocation would be c onsidered. Even so broa dly

construed, pla intiffs’ APA and F ifth Amendment cla im is frivolous. Al tho ug h § 16 41 do e s n ot p ro hib it Cu sto ms f ro m c on du c tin g an a dju dic a tiv e he ari ngto a sc e rt a inCourt No. 06- 00279 P age 9

fac ts material to a r evoca

tion under subsec tion (g ), plaintiffs could not have benef itted from such a hea ringon the fa cts as asse rted in their c omplaint. The only “fa ct” that § 1641( g ) per mitted Customs to asce rtain prior to notifying Schic k that his license wa s suspended wa s Schick’s failure to acc omplish a tim ely filing of the re port. 19 U.S.C. § 1641(g )(2) . Plaintiffs admit such
a f a i l ur e i nth e i r

c o mp l a i n t . C o mp l
. ¶

9 ( “ A s th e r e s u l to f

i l l n e s s , p l a i n t i f

f A rthur C
. S c h i c k , III , did not tim ely

file his require d triennial status repor t on or befor e F ebrua

ry 1, 2006.”). The statute requir ed Customs to provide notice of the suspe nsion, but plainti ffs a lso admit that S chick
rec eived suc h notice and ma ke no cla im that the notice was de ficient. SeeCompl. ¶ 10 (stating that “[b] y letter dated on or a

bout March 5, 2006 . . . , the Port Director of Customs . . . noti fied Mr. Schick that, as a

result of his fa ilure to file the r equire d triennial re port by the Fe bruar

y 1, 20 06 de a dli ne , Cu sto ms h a d s us pe nd e d h is l ic e ns e ” ); c f. Butler , 30 CI T at 835-41, 442 F. Supp. 2d at 1315-21 ( holding that tra nsfer was a ppropriate wher e plaintiff c laimed that the regulation setting for

th the revoc ation proce dures wa s inconsistent with the statute with respec t to the date that trig g ere d the six ty -day period a nd there by

violated § 1641(g )(2) (B ) and the due proce ss require ment). Ac cordingto the statute, the only fac t material to re vocation of a suspended lice nse is whether the license e fa iled to make the r equire d reme dial filing w ithin the six ty -day statutory period followingrec eipt of the notice of suspension. See19 U. S.C. § 1641(g )(2) (C) (pr oviding in that eve nt that “the license shall be revok ed wi tho ut p re

jud ic e to the filing of an a

pplication for a

new lice nse” ( emphasis adde d)). Plaintiffs admit in the complaint that “by

rea son of illness, Mr. Schick fa iled to file the for m within the 60 day

period sp e c if ie d b y Cus tom s. ” Com

pl. ¶ 1 0. In s umm ary , p la int if fs a dmi t in

the c omp la int

a se t of fa c ts
u p o nwh i ch C u s t o m s wa s re qu i re d b y th e s t at u t e t o re v o k e S ch i ck ’s l i ce n s e. T h ey fa i l t o al l egeCourt No. 06- 00279 P age 10

that any of these f acts we re e ver in dispute. The court c onsiders fr ivolous a claim that due pr oc e ss r e qu ir e d Cu sto ms t o c on du c t an a dju dic a tiv e he ari ngto d e te rm ine fa c ts t hat pl a int if

fs , up on c omm e nc ingthe a c tio n, a dmi t. P la int if fs ’ i mpl ie d c la im that du e pr oc e ss r e qu ir e d Cu sto ms to offer Schick a he aringat which Schick c ould have e stablished any other fa cts or mitigating
c ir c ums tanc e s, or

pr op os e d a

se ttl e me nt, is f

ri vo lou s a s w e ll. Th e statut e on its fa c e , in § 1641(g ), plainly

fore closed a

ny inquiry into such fac ts or circ umstances. Customs lacked discretion to consider

the re asons why

Schick, once notified of the suspension, may have f ailed to remedy within the six ty -day

period his ea

rlier f ailure to file. T he cour

t concludes, how ever , that plaintiffs’ complaint fa ils to st ate a ny claim that § 1641(g ) violates the F ifth Amendment. Be cause the cour

t, for the r easons state d below, re ache s this conclusion based on its rea ding of the complaint, the cour

t does not decide the question of whe ther such a claim, had it bee n made,
wo uld have be e n n on fr ivo lou s. In their motion seekingtransfe r, plaintiffs appe ar to c hara cter ize their APA claim as containinga cla im that § 1641(g ) is unconstitutional as applied, ar g uing that this i s an issue neve r befor e dec ided by

any fede ral c ourt. Pl.’s Mot. 5. The motion st ates that “ [s] pecif ically , plaintiff
asser ts that, to the ex tent 19 U.S.C. § 1641(g) is interprete d as allowingthe re vocation of br oker licenses without prior he aring , it violates constituti onal guara ntees of due proce ss” and that “[p] laintiff’s ac tion raises substantial and ser ious questions reg ardingthe constitutionality of Section 1641(g ) as c urre ntly administered by

Customs .” Id. Th e fl aw i n th is c ha ra c te ri zat ion

is that the constitutional claim plaintiffs appea r to descr ibe in their motion to transfer appea rs nowher e in their c omplaint. The only para g raphs in the c omplaint that conceiva bly could be construed tog ether

to sugg est such a c laim are the af oreme ntioned para g raphs 28 a nd 29.Court No. 06- 00279 P age 11

Al tho ug h th e c ourt

re a c he s it s c on c lus ion

that pl a int if

fs ma de no c on sti tut ion a l c la im 4 based on its construc tion of the complaint, the cour t observes that plaintiffs, in opposing defe ndant’s motion to dism iss, ge nera lly char acte rized their claims as c laims that are other than fac ial or as- applied cha lleng es to the constitutionality of 19 U.S.C. § 1641(g ). Plaintiffs argued that de fe nd ant’ s argume nt, ma de in s up po rt of dis mis sa l, t

hat su bs e c tio ns (d ) a

nd (g ) c re a te se pa rate re vo c atio n p ro c e dure s is an im pe rm iss ibl e c on str

uc tio n o f § 16 41 fo r v ari ou s r e a so ns , including the rea son that defe ndant’s construc tion of the statute would lead to a bsurd and unconstitutional results. SeeM e m . o f P
. & A
. i nO p p ’ nt o D e f

. ’ s M o t . t o D i s m i s s 2 8 ( “ In plaintiff’s view, 19 U .S.C. § 1641(g) provides a ground for possible re vocation of a license, but do e s n ot e xcu se Cus tom s f ro m f oll ow ingthe no tic e and

he ari ngpr oc e dure s o f 1 9 U .S. C. § 1641(d) be fore revokinga license on that g round.”)
. Paragraph 28 state s no claim by itself and mer ely

alleg es as a

fac t that Schick “wa s not give n the op po rt un ity to s ub mit

fa c ts, argume nts , o ff

e rs of se ttl e me nt, or

pr op os a ls o f a dju stm e nt w ith
re s p ec tt o th e r ev o ca t i o no f h i s cu s t o m h o u s e b ro k er ’s l i ce n s e. ” C o mp l
. ¶ 2 8
. Al th o u gh pa ra g ra ph29 state s a

c la im, that c la im i n it s e nti re ty is that “ Cus tom s’ fa ilure to a c c or d A rt hur C
. Schick a he aringin acc ordanc e with the APA constituted a violation of that statute, a nd deprive d him of due proc ess of law , in violation of the Fifth Amendme nt to the United States Constit ution.” Compl. ¶ 29. Even construe d liberally , this paragraph doe s not make out a fa cial
or an a s-applied c laim that 19 U.S.C. § 1641(g) violates the F ifth Amendment. Ther e is no ref ere nce in e ither par ag raph to § 1641(g ), or e ven to § 1641 in g ener al. The pa ragraph doe s not materia lly

expand upon plaintiffs’ contentions, to which much of the re mainder of

the complaint is directed, that both § 1641 and the APA re quired a n adjudicative he aringin connec tion with the lic e ns e re vo c atio n. In c on c lus ion , p ara g ra ph s 2 8 a nd 29 of the c omp la int

do no t st a te a

c la im 4 that § 1641(g ), on its fac e or a s applied, violates the F ifth Amendment, and pla intiffs did not seek to a me nd the ir c omp la int

to a dd su c h a c la im.Court No. 06- 00279 P age 12 C. Pl aintiffs’ Eig hth Amendment Claim is Frivolous Pla int if fs thi rd c la im i s id e nti fi e d in

the c omp la int

a s “ CO UN T I I I– V iol a tio n o f E ig hth Amendment ‘Excessive F ines’ Clause.” SeeCompl. ¶¶ 32-36. Plaintiffs state that [t ]o t he extent that Custom s revoke d and for feited the Customhous e broke r lic e ns e of pla int if f Art hur C . Sc hic k I I Ia s a

fi ne or sa nc tio n f or his fa ilure to timely file the infor

mational repor

t prescr ibed in 19 U.S.C. § 1641(g) (1), the sanction constitutes an e x cessive f ine in violation of the Eig hth Amendment to the Un ite d St ate s Co ns tit

uti on , a nd mus t be se t a sid e a s unla wf ul. Compl. ¶ 36. This claim is frivolous because it is based on a fa lse premise. Customs did not
re vo ke Sc hic k’ s li c e ns e a s a fi ne or sanc tio n a

nd c ou ld n ot l awf

ull y have do ne so . B e c a

us e Sc hic k f a ile d to fi le the re po rt

duri ngthe sixty -d ay

pe ri od fo llo wi nghis re c e ipt

of no tic e that hi s lic e ns e ha d b e e n s us pe nd e d f or his e arl ie r f

a ilure to c omp ly

wi th t he re po rt ingre qu ir e me nt, Cus tom s a c te d e xac tly

a s th e statut e dir e c te d it

to d o, re vo kin g the lic e ns e wi tho ut p re jud ic e to the fi lin gof

an a pp lic atio n f

or a ne w l ic e ns e . O n th e un c on te ste d f a c ts o f t his c a se , Cu sto ms lacke d any

authority to impose, or consider imposing , a fine or sanc tion, justas it lacke d authority to do any thing other

than to proce ed to re vocation once Schick allowed the six ty -day period to come to a close w ithout making the r equire d reme dial filing. In advanc ing the ir third
c la im, pla int if

fs do no t st ate or

imp ly that th e y are c ha lle ng ingthe c on sti tut ion a lity of 19 U. S.C. § 1641(g ) on Eig hth Amendment g rounds. Ther efor e, they are left with an untena

ble claim that challeng es as a

n impermissible “sanction” a n action that Customs was require d by statute to take. Be cause any

court’s disposition of plaintiffs’ Eig hth Amendment claim would be obvious, the
c la im mus t be re g ard e d a s f ri vo lou s. Plaintiffs cited United States v. Bajakajian , 5 24 U. S. 3 21 (1 99 8) , in su pp or t of the ir Eig hth Amendment claim, Mem. of P. & A. in Opp’n to De f.’s Mot. to Dismiss 25, but citationCourt No. 06- 00279 P age 13

The c ourt notes that under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) (2006) , a civil ac tion commenced 5 ag ainst the United States is subject to a six -y ear statute of limitations. Thus, i f any nonfrivolous claim possibly

could ar ise out of Schick’s lice nse re vocation, it appea rs that Schick would not be pr e c lud e d f

ro m pu rs uin g it i n a

n a pp ro pr iate fo rum. to this authority

does nothing to bolster their cla im so as to render it nonfrivolous. Bajakajian he ld t hat th e Un ite d St ate s v iol ate d th e Exc e ssi ve F ine s Cl a us e of the Ei g hth

Am e ndme nt i n seekingthe forf

eiture of the entire amount of $357,144 of whic h Ba jakajian wa s found guilty of failingto report to Customs upon ex iting the United States. Bajakajian , 524 U.S. at 324. The fac ts upon which plaintiffs base their Eig hth Amendment claim ar e not ana logous to those upon which the Supre me Court rea ched its dec ision in Bajakajian
. III . C ONCL US I ON F or the a fo re state d r e a so ns , th e c ourt c on c lud e s th a t e a c h o f p la int if fs ’ t hr e e c la ims is frivolous. I t would be contra ry to the sound administration of justice for de fenda nt and another fede ral c ourt to be burde ned by any litigation commenc ed on these claims. Ther efor e, the c ourt conclude s that the transfe r of this ac tion to a court of c ompetent jurisdiction would not be in the interest of justice. Acc ording ly , the cour t does not consider the question of an a ppropriate forum 5 fo r t ra ns fe r. Th e c ourt

la c ks jur isd ic tio n o ve r p la int if fs ’ f ourt h c la im, wh ic h th e c ourt

e arl ie r h e ld to b e moo t. Jud g me nt w ill be e nte re d d e nyingpla int if fs ’ m oti on

to t ra ns fe r a nd dis mis sin g thi s action for lack of jurisdiction.
/s/ Timot hy C. St ance u Timothy C. St ance u J u d g e Dated: October

28, 2009 New Y ork, Ne w York