
    Old Republic Insurance Company, plaintiff v. United States, defendant
    Court No. 83-8-01115
    Before Bernard Newman, Judge.
    
    (Dated December 28, 1983)
    
      Sandler & Travis, P.A. (Mark D. Crames, Esq., of counsel) for plaintiff.
    
      Richard K. Willard, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Joseph I. Liebman, Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch and Kenneth N. Wolf, Esq., for defendant.
   Bernard Newman, Judge:

Before the Court is a motion under Rule 15 of the Rules of the Court of International Trade by Washington International Insurance Company (Washington) to amend the summons filed in this case by Old Republic Insurance Company (Republic). Washington seeks to be substituted as plaintiff, alleging it is the real party in interest and that the action was “inadvertently” filed in the name of Republic.

Defendant opposes the proposed amendment on the ground that Washington has failed at this time to establish any basis for the substitution of plaintiffs, and requests that the motion to amend be denied without prejudice to renewal upon a proper showing.

I agree with defendant that Washington’s motion should be denied, but without prejudice to renewal.

The papers presently before the Court fail to disclose Republic’s connection with the cause of action, if any, or Washington’s standing under 28 U.S.C. § 2631 as a proper party plaintiff. Section 2631 provides, inter alia, that a civil action may be commenced by the person who filed the protest pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1514 or by a surety on the transaction which is the subject of the protest. Washington, however, has not asserted that it either filed the protest or was the surety on the transaction which was the subject of the protest. Moreover, Washington has made no effort to explain the circumstances under which this action was “inadvertently” filed in the name of Republic. Indeed, for all that is presently before the Court, Republic may have been a total stranger to the import transaction. Consequently, Washington’s application utterly fails to demonstrate any basis for the proposed substitution.

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby Ordered that Washington’s motion to amend the summons to substitute itself for Republic as plaintiff in this action is denied, but without prejudice to renewal upon a showing of a proper factual or legal basis to support its motion. 
      
       See Rule 3(d) of the Rules of the Court of International Trade.
     