Case: Armstrong Rubber Co., et al., plantiffs v. United States, et al., defendants
Abbreviation: Armstrong Rubber Co. v. United States
Decision Date: 1985-10-18
Docket Number: Court No. 84-10-01444
Citation: 9 Ct. Int'l Trade 519
Volume: 9
Reporter: United States Court of International Trade Reports
Court: United States Court of International Trade
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Armstrong Rubber Co., et al., plantiffs v. United States, et al., defendants
Judges: Before Watson, Judge.
Pages: 519–520

Head Matter:
Armstrong Rubber Co., et al., plantiffs v. United States, et al., defendants
Court No. 84-10-01444
Before Watson, Judge.
(Decided October 18, 1985)
Lynn M. Schlitt, General Counsel; Michael P. Mobile, Assistant General Counsel and Brenda A. Jacobs, for defendant U.S. International Trade Commission.
Frederic L. Ikenson, P.C. (Frederick L. Ikenson of counsel) for plaintiffs.
Arnold and Porter (Robert E. Herzstein, Thomas B. Wilner and Alan O. Sykes) for defendant-intervenors Hankook Tire Manufacturing Co., et al.

Opinion:
Watson, Judge:
This motion for a stay pending appeal raises the same issues as were recently discussed in American Grape Growers Alliance v. United States, 9 CIT 505, Slip Op. 85-104 (Oct. 7, 1985).
Here too, the Court finds that there is a fair possibility of damage to plaintiffs from the granting of a stay, in terms of the continued deprivation of an administrative investigation into their alleged injury. There is no comparable harm to anyone else, and a strong public interest in the uninterrupted progress of these investigations.
For these reasons, the motion for a stay is denied.