## Facts

- Eastalco Aluminum Company and related plaintiffs challenged U.S. Customs’ tariff classification of imported carbon refractory bricks used in aluminum manufacturing.
- Eastalco filed summonses in the Court of International Trade (CIT) and later filed complaints in two actions addressing different types of bricks.
- With the government’s consent, the CIT consolidated the two complaint-filed actions as a test case and placed the remaining related summons-only actions on the CIT’s suspension calendar pending the test case outcome.
- In the test case, the government asserted a counterclaim seeking classification under a different tariff provision carrying higher duties than originally assessed.
- The CIT entered judgment for the United States on the test case, granting the government’s counterclaim.
- In the suspended summons-only actions, no complaints were filed and thus the government had not served answers or summary-judgment motions, and had not filed counterclaims.
- After prevailing in the test case, the government moved to remove the summons-only actions from suspension, obtain leave to file counterclaims, and prevent Eastalco from voluntarily dismissing those actions.
- The CIT issued an order enjoining Eastalco from voluntarily dismissing the suspended summons-only actions, reasoning that dismissal would frustrate the test-case/suspension procedure and deny the government the benefit of its successful counterclaim theory.

## Issues

1. Whether the CIT may enjoin plaintiffs from filing notices of voluntary dismissal when Rule 41(a)(1) permits dismissal without court order before service of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.
2. Whether the CIT’s test-case and suspension-calendar procedures can limit or modify the operation of Rule 41(a)(1) in suspended, summons-only actions.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit vacated the CIT’s injunction and remanded.
- The court held the injunction directly conflicted with Rule 41(a)(1), which grants plaintiffs an absolute right to dismiss by notice before service of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.
- Because the suspended actions had no complaints and no answers or summary-judgment motions had been served, Eastalco remained within Rule 41(a)(1)’s pre-answer window.
- The CIT’s case-management tools for test cases and suspension could not be used to curtail the rule-based dismissal right.
- The government’s interest in preserving the opportunity to assert counterclaims based on the test-case victory did not create an exception to Rule 41(a)(1).

## Legal Principles

- Under CIT Rule 41(a)(1) (mirroring Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the adverse party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment.
- A Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal in that time window is unilateral and self-executing; courts lack authority to deny, condition, or bar it through injunctions.
- Judicial administration devices, including test-case designation and suspension calendars, cannot override or rewrite procedural rights granted by the rules.
- A defendant’s desire to preserve counterclaim opportunities does not authorize a court to restrict Rule 41(a)(1)’s pre-answer dismissal mechanism.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that the Court of International Trade could not enjoin Eastalco from voluntarily dismissing suspended summons-only actions because Rule 41(a)(1) grants an unconditional, self-executing right to dismiss before service of an answer or summary-judgment motion, and case-management procedures cannot create exceptions to that rule.


Eastalco Aluminum Co. v. United States, 995 F.2d 201 (Fed. Cir. 1993)