Opinion ID: 624415
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard of Review and Claims at Issue on Appeal

Text: We apply a de novo standard of review to both a trial court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and a trial court's dismissal for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Boyle v. United States, 200 F.3d 1369, 1372 (Fed.Cir.2000); see also Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. United States, 517 F.3d 1319, 1330-31 (Fed.Cir.2008). We review a trial court's denial of a request for discovery for abuse of discretion. Forest Prods. NW, Inc. v. United States, 453 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir.2006). On appeal, Plaintiffs challenge the Court of International Trade's dismissal of four of the Complaint's six claims asserted against the Surety Defendants. These claims allege the following: Count 1: Plaintiffs are intended third-party beneficiaries of the bond contracts involving the importers, sureties, and Government; Count 2: The new shipper bonds were not voided by the CDSOA; Count 3: Surety Defendants breached their new shipper bond contracts involving the importers and Government; Count 6: Surety Defendants unlawfully compromised, modified, or discharged new shipper bonds owed under the bond contracts. Plaintiffs also appeal from the Court of International Trade's dismissal of eleven of the Complaint's claims asserted against the Government, alleging the following: Count 1: Plaintiffs are intended third-party beneficiaries of the bond contracts involving the importers, sureties, and Government; Count 2: The new shipper bonds were not voided by the CDSOA; [1] Count 6: The Government unlawfully compromised, modified, or discharged new shipper bonds owed under the bond contracts; Count 8: Commerce failed to issue liquidation instructions to Customs, which resulted in uncollected antidumping duties; Count 9: Customs failed to assess final antidumping duties (i.e., it failed to execute the instructions it received from Commerce); Count 10: Customs failed to distribute collected duties to the domestic producers in accordance with the CDSOA; Count 11: Customs failed to issue letters to sureties demanding payment when importers missed duty payments; Count 12: Customs unlawfully compromised (i.e., settled) antidumping duties secured by new shipper bonds; Count 13: Customs unlawfully wrote off duties as uncollectable; Count 14: Customs unlawfully cancelled new shipper bonds; and Count 15: Customs failed to provide the Department of Justice with notice letters when sureties did not meet payment obligations. [2] For the reasons detailed below, Counts 1, 2, 3, and 6 as asserted against the Surety Defendants must be dismissed. We reach this conclusion, however, on grounds other than those relied on by the Court of International Trade. Specifically, while the Court of International Trade dismissed these claims on third-party beneficiary grounds, we do so for lack of jurisdiction. As for the claims against the Government, dismissal is appropriate for: Counts 1, 2, and 6 because Plaintiffs fail to qualify as intended third-party beneficiaries of the bond contracts; Counts 11 and 13 because these claims challenge discretionary agency actions that are unreviewable in federal court under Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985); Counts 8-10, 12, and 15 because these claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Twombly, 550 U.S. at 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955; and Count 14 because Plaintiffs conceded that this claim was filed in error. We turn first to the Claims against the Surety Defendants, followed by the Claims against the Government.