Case Name: Three Star Tailoring Co., Inc., plaintiff v. United States, defendant
Court: United States Court of International Trade
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1991-11-26
Citations: 15 Ct. Int'l Trade 596
Docket Number: Court No. 89-10-00591
Parties: Three Star Tailoring Co., Inc., plaintiff v. United States, defendant
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of International Trade Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 596–597

Head Matter:
Three Star Tailoring Co., Inc., plaintiff v. United States, defendant
Court No. 89-10-00591
(Dated November 26, 1991)
Fitch, King and Caffentizis, (Richard C. King) for plaintiff.
Stuart M. Gerson, Assistant Attorney General; Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, (Bruce N. Stratvert) for defendant.

Opinion:
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Musgrave, Judge:
Plaintiff moves the Court pursuant to Rule 84 to suspend this case under Enron Oil Trading and Transportation Co. v. United States, No. 87-09-00934, Slip Op. 91-91 (Sept. 27, 1991). The government opposes the motion. The Court finds the governments position persuasive, and denies plaintiffs motion without prejudice.
Rule 84(d) requires the movant to include in his motion a concise statement of the issue of fact or question of law alleged to be the same in the two cases. Plaintiffs motion states that the common question in this case and Enron is "whether the subject entries [were] liquidated by operation of law pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1504(a)."
The precise issue in Enron was whether the government had provided the plaintiff therein with notice required by 19 U.S.C. § 1504(b) (1980) that the period for liquidation had been extended. Enron, at 2. Nothing before the Court today indicates that notice is an issue in this case.
Accordingly, plaintiffs motion to suspend this case under Enron Oil Trading and Transportation Co. v. United States, No. 87-09-00934, Slip Op. 91-91 (Sept. 27,1991) is hereby denied.