PUBLIC VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN CASUAL FOOTWEAR AND
`PACKAGING THEREOF
`
`
` Inv. No. 337-TA-1270
`
`
`
`ORDER NO. 56:
`
`INITIAL DETERMINATION GRANTING CROCS, INC.’S AND
`LOEFFLER RANDALL
`INC.’S
`JOINT MOTION TO
`TERMINATE THE INVESTIGATION AS TO LOEFFLER
`RANDALL BASED UPON A CONSENT ORDER
`
`
`(May 6, 2022)
`
`On April 26, 2022, Complainant Crocs, Inc. (“Crocs”) and Respondent Loeffler Randall
`
`Inc. (“Loeffler Randall”) (together, the “Moving Parties”) moved to terminate this investigation as
`
`to Loeffler Randall based upon a consent order stipulation and proposed consent order. Motion
`
`Docket No. 1270-050. The Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”) filed a response (“Staff
`
`Resp.”) supporting the requested relief on May 3, 2022. The nonmoving respondents did not
`
`indicate any opposition to the motion. Mot. at 2.
`
`Commission Rule 210.21(c) provides: “A motion for termination by consent order shall
`
`contain copies of any licensing or other settlement agreement, any supplemental agreements, and
`
`a statement that there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied between the
`
`parties concerning the subject matter of the investigation.” 19 C.F.R. § 210.21(c). The pending
`
`motion includes a Consent Order Stipulation, attached as Exhibit B, which contain the admissions,
`
`waivers, statements, and other requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(c). The Proposed
`
`Consent Order is attached as Exhibit C. The Moving Parties have also entered into a settlement
`
`agreement. A copy of the settlement agreement is attached to this initial determination as Exhibit
`
`A. Consistent with Commission Rule 210.21(b) and (c), they provided confidential and public
`
`versions of the agreements on which the motion is based. Further, the Moving Parties certify that
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`“there are no other agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between Complainant and
`
`Loeffler Randall concerning the subject matter of this Investigation.” Mot. at 2. The pending
`
`motion therefore satisfies the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(c).
`
`Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3) sets forth the requirements for a consent order stipulation.
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.21(c)(3). The consent order stipulation (Exhibit B) conforms with Commission
`
`Rule 210.21(c)(3).
`
`Commission Rule 210.21(c)(4) sets forth the requirements for a consent order. 19 C.F.R.
`
`§ 210.21(c)(4). The proposed consent order (Exhibit C) conforms with Commission Rule
`
`210.21(c)(4).
`
`Commission Rule 210.50(b)(2) provides that, in the case of a proposed termination by
`
`settlement agreement, consent order, or arbitration agreement, the parties may file statements
`
`regarding the impact of the proposed termination on the public interest, and the administrative law
`
`judge may hear argument, although no discovery may be compelled, with respect to issues relating
`
`solely to the public interest. 19 C.F.R. § 210.50(b)(2). The administrative law judge is directed to
`
`consider and make appropriate findings “regarding the effect of the proposed settlement on the
`
`public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of like or
`
`directly competitive articles in the United States, and U.S. consumers.” Id.
`
`The Moving Parties argue that “[e]ntering the proposed Consent Order will save
`
`administrative resources by removing the need for the Commission to determine whether
`
`Respondent Loeffler Randall’s activities violate Section 337 as they relate to the Accused
`
`Products.” Mem. at 2. They also assert that entry of the proposed consent order “will not impose
`
`an undue burden on the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy,
`
`production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or U.S. consumers.” Id.
`
`Staff states it “is not aware of any information that would indicate that termination of this
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`investigation as to Loeffler Randall on the basis of the Proposed Consent Order would be contrary
`
`to the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of
`
`like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or U.S. consumers.” Staff Resp. at 10-11.
`
`Having considered the Exhibits and statements submitted, I find no public interest concerns
`
`weighing against termination of the investigation as to Loeffler Randall. There is nothing to
`
`suggest that the proposed consent order would impose an undue burden on the public health and
`
`welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of similar or directly
`
`competitive articles in the United States, or U.S. consumers. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d). I therefore
`
`find that termination of the investigation as to Loeffler Randall is in the public interest, which
`
`favors settlement to avoid needless litigation and to conserve public resources. See Certain Data
`
`Storage Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-471, Order No. 51, at 4 (March 11,
`
`2003).
`
`Therefore, it is my initial determination that Motion No. 1270-050 is granted. This
`
`investigation is hereby terminated as to Respondent Loeffler Randall Inc. This initial
`
`determination, along with supporting documentation, is hereby certified to the Commission.
`
`Pursuant to 19 C.F.R.§ 210.42(h), this initial determination shall become the determination
`
`of the Commission unless a party files a petition for review of the initial determination pursuant
`
`to 19 C.F.R. § 210.43(a), or the Commission, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.44, orders on its own
`
`motion a review of the initial determination or certain issues herein.
`
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Cameron Elliot
` Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`