Nucor Corp. v. United States
2016 CIT 104
| Ct. Intl. Trade | 2016Background
- GOK (Government of Korea) moved to intervene as of right under USCIT Rule 24(a) in Nucor Corp. v. United States, filing its motion on Oct. 31, 2016 (after the 30-day deadline).
- Complaint was filed and served Sept. 8, 2016; USCIT Rule 24(a)(3) imposes a mandatory 30-day limit for intervention as of right, subject to narrowly defined good-cause exceptions.
- GOK explained the delay by citing a time-consuming, multi-agency Korean authorization process and requested the court to treat that as excusable neglect or inability to act with due diligence.
- Plaintiff (Nucor) argued GOK failed to provide specific facts showing why authorizations could not have been obtained within 30 days and that a broad, unsupported excuse would eviscerate the rule’s time limit.
- The court found GOK did not supply sufficient factual detail to demonstrate excusable neglect or that due diligence could not have produced intervention within the 30-day window.
- The court denied GOK’s motion to intervene under Rule 24(a) without prejudice and invited GOK to refile a fact-supported motion by Nov. 18, 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument (GOK) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GOK may intervene as of right despite filing after the 30-day deadline in USCIT R. 24(a)(3) | Deny: GOK failed to show specific facts demonstrating excusable neglect or inability to intervene with due diligence | Allow: Delay caused by complex, multi-agency Korean approval process; should be excusable neglect or due-diligence exception | Denied without prejudice: GOK did not provide sufficient facts to meet either excusable neglect or due-diligence standard; may refile with supporting facts by Nov. 18, 2016 |
| Whether minimal prejudice to parties excuses late intervention absent good cause | Time limits cannot be waived based only on minimal prejudice; would render rule superfluous | Emphasizes minimal prejudice and lack of bad faith | Court rejected prejudice argument as insufficient to excuse late filing |
| Whether GOK demonstrated excusable neglect under Rule 24(a)(3)(i) | Argues GOK pled only a broad, unsupported excuse; not enough | GOK contends coordination delays justify excusable neglect | Court held GOK did not allege facts (mistake, surprise, or inadvertence) to satisfy excusable neglect |
| Whether GOK showed that due diligence could not have made a timely motion under Rule 24(a)(3)(ii) | GOK failed to describe steps taken before the deadline to obtain approvals | GOK asserts approvals were time-consuming and final decision occurred Oct. 28, 2016 | Court held assertions insufficient to show lack of ability to seek intervention with due diligence during the 30 days |
Key Cases Cited
- None cited with official reporter citations in the opinion. The decision rests on USCIT Rule 24(a) and statutory intervention rights rather than on cited case law.