369 F. Supp. 3d 577
D. Del.2019Background
- LKQ Corporation and Keystone Automotive (LKQ) allege CBP seized over 165 replacement automotive grilles from imports as trademark-infringing and sent written seizure notices describing petition-for-remission and judicial-forfeiture procedures.
- LKQ filed at least 81 petitions for remission; some grilles were later returned, some remitted without prior conditions, and at least 13 matters were referred to U.S. Attorneys after claim filings.
- Plaintiffs sued DHS/CBP and the Secretary under the APA (Counts I–V), the Eighth Amendment (Count VI), and the Fifth Amendment due process clause (Count VII), seeking declaratory relief that the grilles are noninfringing and relief from CBP practices.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(1)) as to Counts I–VI and for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)) as to Counts VI–VII.
- The court held that APA review of CBP petition decisions and seizures is barred by doctrine (committed-to-agency discretion, alternative judicial remedies, and nonfinality), found certain claims moot, and dismissed the due-process claim for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may review CBP petition-for-remission determinations under the APA (Counts I–III) | LKQ: CBP's petition denials are final agency actions reviewable under APA; CBP misapplied trademark, design-patent, and Lanham Act law. | DHS/CBP: Petition decisions are discretionary (like pardons) and thus committed to agency discretion; alternative judicial forfeiture remedies exist. | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: petition decisions are committed to agency discretion and alternative judicial remedy (judicial forfeiture) bars APA review. |
| Whether CBP seizures are final agency actions subject to APA review (Count V) | LKQ: Seizures unlawfully effect rights and should be reviewable. | DHS/CBP: Seizure starts a statutory administrative/forfeiture process and is not a "final" decision for APA purposes. | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: seizures are not final agency actions and APA does not waive sovereign immunity. |
| Whether claims challenging prior conditions on remission (Count IV) and alleged excessive fines (Count VI) are live or moot | LKQ: Conditions/fees harmed LKQ and could recur; claim for Eighth Amendment relief. | DHS/CBP: Conditions were removed; no reasonable expectation of recurrence; claims are moot. | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as moot; capable-of-repetition exception inapplicable. |
| Whether CBP's seizure/forfeiture procedures violated Fifth Amendment due process (Count VII) | LKQ: CBP decides private-right disputes without prior judicial determination, delayed referrals, and may leave LKQ without an opportunity to litigate. | DHS/CBP: Border seizures need no pre-seizure hearing; postseizure administrative and judicial forfeiture process satisfies due process; LKQ can trigger judicial forfeiture. | Dismissed for failure to state a claim: postseizure remedies are adequate and LKQ's allegations do not show a due-process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (sovereign immunity requires consent to sue the United States)
- Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (APA review does not duplicate existing statutory review schemes)
- Von Neumann v. United States, 474 U.S. 242 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (postseizure forfeiture proceeding satisfies due process; claimant may trigger forfeiture action)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (Sup. Ct. 1997) (standards for final agency action under the APA)
- Ibarra v. United States, 120 F.3d 472 (4th Cir. 1997) (petition for remission is an act of grace and not judicially reviewable on the merits)
- Schrob v. Catterson, 948 F.2d 1402 (3d Cir. 1991) (administrative remission process is an informal remedy and often unreviewable)
- In re Sixty Seven Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Dollars, 901 F.2d 1540 (11th Cir. 1990) (remission of forfeiture is discretionary and not a right)
- Turner v. Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev., 449 F.3d 536 (3d Cir. 2006) (availability of an adequate alternative judicial remedy bars APA review)