From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Former Employees v. United States Sec. of Labor

United States Court of International Trade
Dec 28, 2005
Court No. 05-00040 (Ct. Int'l Trade Dec. 28, 2005)

Opinion

Court No. 05-00040.

December 28, 2005


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ORDER


This case, involving a denial of certification for trade adjustment assistance by the U.S. Department of Labor, is before the Court following an order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(d).

This action was filed by plaintiff on January 18, 2005. Issue was joined by the filing of defendant's answer on March 25, 2005. Subsequently, the Court entered a scheduling order to govern disposition of the case. That scheduling order established a due date of October 3, 2005 for any motions by plaintiff addressed to the pleadings, the administrative record or other matters related to the case. Following plaintiff's failure to submit any such motions by that date, and upon proper motion by defendant, the Court issued an order to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff's response to this order to show cause was due on December 12, 2005. To date, no response has been filed.

Accordingly, upon consideration of the foregoing, and upon due deliberation, it is hereby

ORDERED that, pursuant to USCIT Rule 41(b)(3), this action is dismissed for lack of prosecution.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Former Employees v. United States Sec. of Labor

United States Court of International Trade
Dec 28, 2005
Court No. 05-00040 (Ct. Int'l Trade Dec. 28, 2005)
Case details for

Former Employees v. United States Sec. of Labor

Case Details

Full title:FORMER EMPLOYEES OF THERMAL INTERIOR, VANDELIA OPERATIONS OF DELPHI CORP…

Court:United States Court of International Trade

Date published: Dec 28, 2005

Citations

Court No. 05-00040 (Ct. Int'l Trade Dec. 28, 2005)

Citing Cases

International Union, United Auto. v. Reich

Although DOL has not articulated its use of the "dual test" to determine if imports contributed importantly…