Giorgio Foods, Inc. v. United States, 2011 WL 5974407

Giorgio sought to amend its complaint to drop facial First Amendment and Equal Protection challenges to the CDSOA while preserving as‑applied challenges in light of SKF USA, Inc. v. U.S. Customs and Border Prot.;
Giorgio also sought to add a statutory claim about inconsistent agency actions and, alternatively, a due process claim, and to clarify its requested relief to include money damages from the United States;
CDSOA distributions were available to an 'affected domestic producer' who supported the petition, with SKF later holding the statute compliant as applied to Giorgio’s situation;
Giorgio opposed ITC petitions in India while neutral or opposing other countries during the 1998–99 ITC investigations into preserved mushrooms from Chile, China, Indonesia, and India;
The court previously granted in part Giorgio’s earlier amendments and denied other requests; the current motion addresses SKF’s impact on Giorgio’s claims and new factual developments since 2007;
The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i) to entertain amendments and potential relief requests, including reconsideration of statutory and due process theories.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May Giorgio amend to drop facial CDSOA challenges and keep as‑applied ones?	Giorgio contends SKF supports revising claims to as‑applied challenges only.	Customs argues amendments are futile since Giorgio’s position under SKF is limited.	Granted for the first and second requests.
Should Giorgio reinstate a previously abandoned statutory CDSOA claim?	Giorgio asserts a new, SKF‑driven statutory theory against ITC/Customs.	ITC/Intervenors argue prejudice and lack of new facts; claim not new.	Denied.
Does Giorgio have a viable due process claim for CDSOA relief?	Giorgio seeks due process relief due to lack of notice and an opportunity to be heard.	Giorgio has had opportunities to challenge exclusions and fails to state a due process claim.	Denied.
May Giorgio seek money damages against the United States under CDSOA relief?	Giorgio contends relief includes monetary compensation; 28 U.S.C. § 2643 allows money judgments.	APA limitations and sovereign immunity generally bar money damages in § 1581(i) actions.	Denied.
What is the scope of relief Giorgio may obtain if some amendments succeed?	Relief should reflect Giorgio’s stated proposals, including distributions and monetary recovery.	Relief should be limited by statute and governing sovereign immunity.	As to first two requests, granted; as to third through fifth, denied.

SKF USA, Inc. v. United States, 556 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (upheld CDSOA as applied; clarified petition support status)
Candle Corp. of Am. v. United States, 374 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (CDSOA purpose and reciprocal relief concepts)
Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988) (distinction between money damages and specific relief)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1980) (due process requiring meaningful opportunity to be heard)