NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

HOME PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee

SINCE HARDWARE (GUANGZHOU) CO. LTD.,

Plaintiff

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

v.

TARGET CORPORATION,

Movant-Appellant

______________________

2020-1202

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in Nos. 1:07-cv-00123-LMG, 1:07-cv-00126-LMG, 

Senior Judge Leo M. Gordon.

______________________

Decided: February 16, 2021

______________________

FREDERICK LYLE IKENSON, Blank Rome LLP, Washington, DC, for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by 

Case: 20-1202 Document: 89 Page: 1 Filed: 02/16/2021
2 HOME PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL v. UNITED STATES

KIERSTAN LEE CARLSON.

 MICHAEL D. SNYDER, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by

JEANNE DAVIDSON, JENNIFER B. DICKEY, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY; SAAD YOUNUS CHALCHAL, Office of Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, United States

Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

 PATRICK D. GILL, Sandler, Travis & Roserberg, P.A., 

New York, NY, for movant-appellant. Also represented by 

WILLIAM MALONEY.

 ______________________

Before O’MALLEY, TARANTO, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.

Target Corporation (“Target”) seeks appellate review of 

an order of the Court of International Trade (“CIT”). See 

Home Prod. Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 405 F. Supp. 

3d 1368 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2019). Because Target was not a 

party to the CIT action and has not preserved any argument challenging the CIT’s denial of its motion to intervene, we dismiss Target’s nonparty appeal. 

I. BACKGROUND

In December 2016, after nearly ten years of litigation, 

the CIT entered a stipulated final judgment in this antidumping case. The judgment was agreed to by all parties 

to the action: Home Products International, Inc. (“Home 

Products”), Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (“Since 

Hardware”), and the United States. The judgment directed 

the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”)

to: (1) set the final weighted-average dumping margin for 

ironing tables exported by Since Hardware at 72.29%; and 

(2) instruct United States Customs and Border Protection 

(“Customs”) to liquidate the entries at that rate. 

Case: 20-1202 Document: 89 Page: 2 Filed: 02/16/2021
HOME PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL v. UNITED STATES 3

Commerce complied. Customs, however, erroneously liquidated ironing tables produced and exported by Since Hardware that entered between August 4, 2004, and July 31, 

2005—224 total entries—at the cash deposit rate of 9.47%,

rather than the court-ordered rate. 

Home Products, a domestic producer of ironing boards 

and the petitioner for the imposition of antidumping duties, learned of Customs’ error in September 2017 and informed the government. The government promptly filed a 

status report with the CIT, advising of the error. The government explained that, due to the controlling statutory 

scheme, Customs was powerless to correct its mistake and 

indicated that Customs would reliquidate if ordered to do 

so by the court. A few weeks later, on October 27, 2017, the 

CIT entered an order directing reliquidation of the erroneously liquidated entries. No party to the CIT action opposed the order. Reliquidation was scheduled for 

November 17, 2017. 

On November 9, 2017, Target made its first appearance before the CIT. Target is the importer of forty of the 

erroneously liquidated entries and, as a result, paid millions of dollars less in duties than contemplated by the 

CIT’s judgment. Hoping to avoid reliquidation, Target filed 

three motions: Motion to Intervene and Expedite; Motion 

for Expedited Stay of Implementation of [the October 27, 

2017 Order]; and Motion to Reconsider and Vacate the 

Court’s October 27, 2017 Order. On November 15, 2017, 

the CIT stayed implementation of the October 27, 2017 order. The stay remained in effect for twenty-three months.

The CIT issued an Opinion and Order resolving Target’s motions on September 27, 2019. Explaining that the

intervention rules for trade actions are complex, the CIT 

declined to substantively resolve Target’s motion to intervene. The court instead relied on CIT Rule 71 as authority

allowing it to consider, in the context of judgment enforcement proceedings, submissions made by interested

Case: 20-1202 Document: 89 Page: 3 Filed: 02/16/2021
4 HOME PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL v. UNITED STATES

nonparties. That rule provides, “[w]hen an order grants 

relief for a nonparty or may be enforced against a nonparty, 

the procedure for enforcing the order is the same as for a 

party.” CIT Rule 71. After considering Target’s and the 

parties’ arguments, the CIT determined that it had authority to order reliquidation and vacated its November 15, 

2017 stay. Home Prod. Int’l, Inc., 405 F. Supp. 3d at 1378. 

The court denied Target’s motion to intervene as moot. Id. 

Target filed a notice of appeal with the CIT on November 26, 2019. The notice characterized Target as a “Movant 

to Intervene.” Target’s Suppl. App. Exh. A. Target’s merits 

briefing before this court, however, hardly mentions its attempt to intervene. Its statement of the case notes that the 

CIT “denied as moot Target’s motion[] to intervene.” Target’s Opening Br. 3. And Target mentions on the last page 

of its opening brief, without explanation or argument, that 

the CIT abused its discretion by denying intervention: 

“Certainly it was an abuse of discretion for the CIT to deny 

intervention to Target to protect its rights. That abuse of 

discretion is reviewable by this Court.” Id. at 27. Target’s 

reply brief does not reference or discuss intervention. See 

generally Target’s Reply Br.

On December 21, 2020, we sua sponte sought supplemental briefing from Target and the parties, asking for an 

explanation why this nonparty appeal should be allowed. 

We received those briefs on January 15, 2021.

II. DISCUSSION

In the supplemental briefing, Target argues (1) that it 

has preserved a challenge to the CIT’s denial of the motion 

to intervene and (2) that it has a “unique interest” in the 

matter such that the ordinary rule against nonparty appeals should not apply. We address each argument in turn.

A.

The rule that a would-be intervenor can appeal a decision denying intervention is well established. See, e.g.,

Case: 20-1202 Document: 89 Page: 4 Filed: 02/16/2021
HOME PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL v. UNITED STATES 5

Wolfsen Land & Cattle Co. v. Pac. Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns, 695 F.3d 1310, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2012). It 

is equally well settled, however, that “an issue not raised 

by an appellant in its opening brief . . . is waived.” Becton 

Dickinson & Co. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 922 F.2d 792, 800 (Fed. 

Cir. 1990); see also SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex 

Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]rguments 

not raised in the opening brief are waived.”). Cursorily 

raised issues and undeveloped arguments fare no better. 

See SmithKline Beecham Corp., 439 F.3d at 1320; Fuji 

Photo Film Co. v. Jazz Photo Corp., 394 F.3d 1368, 1375 n.4 

(Fed. Cir. 2005); Graphic Controls Corp. v. Utah Med. 

Prod., Inc., 149 F.3d 1382, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

As discussed, Target barely mentions its motion to intervene in its opening brief to this court. See Target’s 

Opening Br. 3, 15, 27. The first mention appears in Target’s statement of the case and merely declares the fact of 

the CIT’s denial. Id. at 3. An additional mention appears 

on the last page of Target’s Argument section. Id. at 27. 

There, Target asserts, without elaboration, “[c]ertainly it 

was an abuse of discretion for the CIT to deny intervention 

to Target to protect its rights.” Id. 

Target argues that these references to the denial of the 

motion to intervene are sufficient to preserve a challenge 

to the CIT’s decision. Target’s Suppl. Br. 3–4. We disagree. 

Target’s right to intervene was seriously contested before 

the CIT. See J.A. 66–73 (Target’s memorandum of law in 

support of its motion to intervene); J.A. 128–33 (Home 

Product’s memorandum in opposition to Target’s motion to 

intervene); J.A. 315–17 (the government’s opposition to 

Target’s motion to intervene). In particular, the parties argued that 28 U.S.C. § 2631(j)(1)(B), which limits intervention as a matter of right in antidumping cases to interested 

parties who participated in proceedings before Commerce, 

did not apply to Target—Target had not participated in any 

capacity prior to 2017. Given the nature and complexity of 

the arguments surrounding Target’s motion to intervene, 

Case: 20-1202 Document: 89 Page: 5 Filed: 02/16/2021
6 HOME PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL v. UNITED STATES

Target’s bald statement to us on appeal that the CIT “certainly” abused its discretion is insufficient to preserve any 

argument on the issue. 

B.

Having found that Target has preserved no basis for us 

to deem it a party to the CIT action, we next turn to the 

question whether Target should be allowed to appeal as a 

nonparty. In all but the narrowest circumstances, “[t]he 

rule that only parties to a lawsuit, or those that properly 

become parties, may appeal an adverse judgment, is well 

settled.” Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301, 304 (1988); see also 

Karcher v. May, 484 U.S. 72, 77 (1987) (“[O]ne who is not a 

party or has not been treated as a party to a judgment has 

no right to appeal therefrom.”); In re Leaf Tobacco Bd. of 

Trade of N.Y., 222 U.S. 578, 581 (1911) (“One who is not a 

party to a record and judgment is not entitled to appeal 

therefrom.”).

The rule against nonparty appeals has some exceptions. Most notably, exceptions to the party requirement 

arise in the class action context, where unnamed class 

members in a certified class would be bound by the judgment. See, e.g., Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 U.S. 1, 14 (2002).

Courts have also allowed nonparties to appeal, while 

stressing the exceptional nature of that result, in certain 

circumstances where the nonparty has a “sufficiently 

unique interest” in the matter. United States v. Osage 

Wind, LLC, 871 F.3d 1078, 1085–86 (10th Cir. 2017).

Target and the government argue that Target should 

fall into the “unique interest” exception to the rule against 

nonparty appeals. Target’s Suppl. Br. 6–8; Government’s 

Suppl. Br. 4–9. Target contends that, because it sought to 

intervene and participated before the CIT, it is not a mere 

“interloper to the appeal who sat on the sidelines in the 

lower courts.” Target’s Suppl. Br. 7. It further asserts that 

“it would be an incredible waste of resources to force Target 

to initiate a new action under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a) so as to 

Case: 20-1202 Document: 89 Page: 6 Filed: 02/16/2021
HOME PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL v. UNITED STATES 7

drag this case out for another four years.” Id. at 8. The 

government notes that the CIT itself recognized Target’s 

interest, as an importer of record, in the matter and argues

that there is no clearly defined set of rules establishing who 

can appeal from a CIT reliquidation order. Government’s 

Suppl. Br. 5. 

In suggesting that this case qualifies as an exception to 

the strong rule against nonparty appeals, the government 

points to a Ninth Circuit formulation that a nonparty “will 

have standing to appeal [a] decision only in exceptional circumstances when: (1) the party participated in the proceedings below; and (2) the equities favor hearing the appeal.” 

Citibank Int’l v. Collier-Traino, Inc., 809 F.2d 1438, 1441 

(9th Cir. 1987). That formulation, though mistakenly characterizing the issue as one of “standing,” cf. Devlin, 536 

U.S. at 6–7 (distinguishing the issues), establishes necessary conditions, but does not elaborate on what concrete 

circumstances will suffice. The Fifth Circuit has used language similar to the Ninth’s, with the added consideration 

of whether the nonparty has a personal stake in the outcome and an added warning that the exception does not 

mean that “parties will be given a free pass to avoid complying with the rules of intervention.” S.E.C. v. Forex Asset 

Mgmt. LLC, 242 F.3d 325, 329–30 (5th Cir. 2001). 

The Seventh Circuit and the Third Circuit have elaborated on an aspect of the issue that is significant to this

case. They have stressed the importance of whether the 

nonparty seeking appeal has an alternative route to redress its grievance. See, e.g., S.E.C. v. Enter. Tr. Co., 559 

F.3d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 2009) (discussing certain cases 

where other circuits have allowed a nonparty appeal and 

concluding: “What these situations have in common is that 

the judicial decision concludes the rights of the affected 

person, who cannot litigate the issue in some other forum.”); Nat’l Football League Players’ Concussion Injury 

Litig., 923 F.3d 96, 106 n.7 (3d Cir. 2019) (“The equities 

favor allowing the appeal because the [nonparties] have no 

Case: 20-1202 Document: 89 Page: 7 Filed: 02/16/2021
8 HOME PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL v. UNITED STATES

way to challenge the District Court’s orders, which affected 

their rights, apart from appealing here.”). 

We need not decide here whether a nonparty can ever 

appeal in a case where the would-be appellant has another, 

statutorily prescribed, path to resolve its complaint. We, 

instead, apply relevant factors gleaned from our sister circuits’ case law to the facts of this case and determine that 

Target’s appeal should be dismissed. Those factors are:

(1) whether the nonparty participated in the proceedings 

below; (2) whether the nonparty has a personal stake in the 

outcome; (3) whether the equities favor hearing the appeal; 

and (4) whether the nonparty has an alternative path to 

appellate review of the decision. 

Applying those factors to this case, there can be no debate that Target participated in the proceeding before the 

CIT, albeit belatedly. It filed several motions and the CIT 

expressly considered Target’s arguments pursuant to CIT 

Rule 71. There is also no question that Target has a personal stake in this case. The CIT’s reliquidation order 

caused Target to pay significantly higher duties on the subject entries. But the last two factors clearly cut the other 

way.

We find that the equities do not favor Target’s request 

for exceptional treatment. When evaluating the balance of 

equities, courts have considered, inter alia, whether the 

nonparty appeal will frustrate another legal principle. See 

Walker v. City of Mesquite, 858 F.2d 1071, 1074 (5th Cir. 

1988) (in the class action context, allowing nonnamed class 

members appeal rights could frustrate the purpose of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23). And courts have expressed serious concerns about the prospect of nonparty 

appeals hindering the purposes and requirements of intervention. See Forex Asset Mgmt., 242 F.3d at 330; cf. Osage 

Wind, 871 F.3d at 1086 (a nonparty seeking to appeal must 

“demonstrate cause for why he did not or could not intervene in the proceedings below”). Notably, in U.S. ex rel. 

Case: 20-1202 Document: 89 Page: 8 Filed: 02/16/2021
HOME PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL v. UNITED STATES 9

Eisenstein v. City of New York, 556 U.S. 928, 933 (2009), 

the Supreme Court rejected an argument (in the qui tam 

context) for disregarding the distinction between parties 

and nonparties, concluding that “intervention is the requisite method for a nonparty to become a party to a lawsuit.”

Target’s nonparty appeal is in tension with the ordinary process of intervention. Here, Target began to follow 

the required procedure before the CIT by moving to intervene, but then deviated from the normal path by choosing

not to contest on appeal the CIT’s denial of its motion. As 

noted, Target presents us with no argument on the propriety of its request to intervene. Had Target argued that it 

should have been allowed to intervene, regardless of our 

resolution of that issue, we would be in a position to confidently conclude that Target’s nonparty appeal does not 

frustrate the principles and procedures underlying intervention. Instead, Target effectively asks that we ignore 

that it sought intervention and skip directly to considering

this case as a nonparty appeal. We decline to do so. To 

ensure that the exceptions to the rule against nonparty appeals remain narrow, we conclude that equity required 

Target, whose motion to intervene was denied, to appeal 

and contest the denial of intervention. As Target failed to 

follow that procedure and does not meaningfully defend 

that choice, we conclude that the equities do not favor allowing Target’s nonparty appeal.1

Finally, it is undisputed that Target has another, statutorily prescribed, path to redress its grievance without resort to a nonparty appeal. Target has, in fact, followed that 

1 It is unclear, moreover, whether the equities favor 

making exceptions for a nonparty who received a windfall 

from Customs’ failure to properly implement a court order, 

so that it may contest correction of that error through a 

procedurally improper route. We need not reach this question in light of Target’s procedural errors. 

Case: 20-1202 Document: 89 Page: 9 Filed: 02/16/2021
10 HOME PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL v. UNITED STATES

path. Upon reliquidation of the subject entries, Target protested Customs’ actions pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514. Target’s Opening Br. 20. If Customs denies Target’s protest, 

Target will be able to commence an action in the CIT challenging that decision. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1581(a), 2637(a). 

And, if the CIT resolves that case adversely to Target, Target, as a party to the CIT action, will be able to seek review 

in this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5). 

Target contends that requiring it to continue down that 

path will be a waste of resources, given the amount of time 

the proceeding will take and the fact that it “is inevitable a 

new case will land right back with this Court.” Target’s 

Suppl. Br. 8. While we recognize some inefficiency in that 

process, it is a problem of Target’s own creation. Target, 

although a nonparty, chose to involve itself at the tail-end 

of this CIT proceeding. Its involvement resulted in an additional two years of litigation before the CIT and over a 

year pending appeal in this court. Had Target chosen to 

follow the procedure prescribed by statute, such that reliquidation would have occurred in November 2017, Target 

may well have reached the point of appeal in its own case. 

Target’s choice to risk a dead-end road, rather than follow 

the clear path laid out by statute, does not create an exceptional circumstance warranting nonparty appeal. 

III. CONCLUSION

That Target and the government would like us to review the substance of this appeal now is not enough to overcome the strong presumption against nonparty appeals. 

Target has not established exceptional circumstances indicating the propriety of a nonparty appeal in this case. Accordingly, we dismiss. 

DISMISSED

COSTS

Costs to Home Products International, Inc. 

Case: 20-1202 Document: 89 Page: 10 Filed: 02/16/2021