Companhia Brasileira Carbureto De Calicio v. Applied Industrial Materials Corp.
640 F.3d 369
D.C. Cir.2011Background
- Three Brazilian ferrosilicon manufacturers sue four US producers and two parent companies for damages from ITC-imposed duties based on allegedly fraudulent ITC petitions.
- District Court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction since defendants are not DC residents or domiciliaries.
- Plaintiffs rely on the government contacts exception and on an alleged conspiracy with a DC-based trade association to establish jurisdiction.
- District Court held conspiracy theory insufficient; it treated government contacts as potentially inapplicable where petitions were fraudulent.
- DC Circuit reviews de novo and certifies a question to the DC Court of Appeals regarding whether a petition to a federal agency in DC can establish jurisdiction when fraud is alleged.
- Context includes ITC findings (1994–1999) about duties on ferrosilicon and subsequent ITC confirmation that fraudulent information influenced the decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conspiracy with DC trade association sufficiency | Plaintiffs argue conspiracy with Ferroalloys Association located in DC supports jurisdiction. | Defendants contend no; no overt acts within DC with sufficient particularity. | Insufficient under the conspiracy theory. |
| Government contacts exception scope for fraudulent petitions | Fraudulent petitions do not bar application of government contacts exception to establish jurisdiction. | Fraudulent petitions fall outside the scope of the government contacts exception. | Unsettled; court certifies DC Court of Appeals to decide whether a petition fraudulently inducing government action can establish jurisdiction. |
| Petitions to ITC as basis for transacting business in DC | Petitioning the ITC constitutes transacting business in DC sufficient for jurisdiction. | Jurisdiction depends on government contacts exception; otherwise no basis. | Resolution depends on certified question to DC Court of Appeals. |
| Certifiability and scope of government contacts exception | Certification unnecessary if DC law supports jurisdiction; otherwise no. | Question is unsettled and dispositive; certification is appropriate. | Court certifies a question to the DC Court of Appeals due to unsettled governing law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Environmental Research Int'l, Inc. v. Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc., 355 A.2d 808 (D.C. 1976) (government contacts exception for entering DC to contact federal agencies)
- Rose v. Silver, 394 A.2d 1368 (D.C.1978) (limits of government contacts exception involving First Amendment rights)
- Lex Tex Ltd. v. Skillman, 579 A.2d 244 (D.C.1990) (scope of government contacts exception in DC)
- Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779 (D.C.Cir.1983) (fraud considerations may affect application of government contacts exception)
- Jungquist v. Sheikh Sultan Bin Khalifa Al Nahyan, 115 F.3d 1020 (D.C.Cir.1997) (need for particularity of conspiracy and overt acts in DC for jurisdiction)
- Second Amendment Found. v. U.S. Conference of Mayors, 274 F.3d 521 (D.C.Cir.2001) (conspiracy-based jurisdiction framework)
- Cal. Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (S. Ct. 1972) (fraudulent petition not protected by Petition Clause)
- Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates, 281 F.3d 1287 (D.C.Cir.2002) (certification authority when governing law uncertain)