Washington Court Stays Eteros' Case Against Alleged CBP Retaliation for CIT Win
Due to the federal government shutdown, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington stayed a case from importer Eteros Technologies USA and several of its executives against CBP for allegedly retaliating against the company and its executive for winning a customs case at the Court of International Trade. Judge Kymberly Evanson said that despite Eteros' refusal to agree to a stay, the court still finds a stay to be appropriate "due to the prejudice that will result to Defendants if their counsel is unable to meet deadlines during the lapse in appropriations" (Eteros Technologies USA v. United States, W.D. Wash. # 2:25-00181).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
In August, Evanson said the Washington court had jurisdiction to review the revocation of the Nexus membership of Aaron McKellar, Eteros' CEO, which lets pre-screened travelers accelerate their entrance into the U.S., and the case isn't mooted by CBP's vacatur of an order banning McKellar from entering the U.S. for five years (see 2508080055).
The court also denied the government's bid to toss the plaintiffs' claims regarding CBP's alleged Administrative Procedure Act violations, since the U.S. failed to address these claims. However, the court said claims directly related to the vacated removal order are mooted, and the company's due process claim was insufficiently pleaded.
As a result of the decision, Eteros filed an amended complaint adding two more executives, Amanda James, director of strategy and business development at Eteros Canada and Eteros USA, and Ryan Bjergso, a senior executive at Eteros USA, alleging they both suffered "adverse" immigration consequences due to CBP's retaliatory action (see 2509030061).
The government then filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the court should dismiss the claim against McKellar's Nexus trusted traveler privileges for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The U.S. added that the court should toss the plaintiffs' claims against CBP's allegedly "unlawful dual treatment of cannabis-related activities" and the agency's failure to undergo adequate rulemaking procedures for failure to state a claim.
The government also moved the court to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for unlawfully delaying or withholding action against Eteros and James as "premature." Regarding Eteros' due process claim, the government said the argument should be dismissed, since "Eteros has no liberty interest in having its executives admitted." And, finally, the U.S. said the court should toss the plaintiffs' Freedom of Information Act claim for failure to state a claim.
In response, Eteros said the motion to dismiss "rests on a fundamentally flawed premise -- that Plaintiffs’ conduct constitutes 'narcotics trafficking' -- a premise colliding head-on with a final, unappealed judgment of the U.S. Court of International Trade and even Defendants’ own binding Customs Rulings, all of which hold that Eteros’s importation and distribution of cannabis-related equipment is lawful."