In Former Employees of Sonoco Products Co. v. Chao, 372 F.3d 1291, 1296-98 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the federal court of appeals held that equitable tolling applies to the Act's 60-day deadline for contesting the denial of a certification petition for benefit eligibility ( 19 U.S.C. § 2395(a)). Accord Anderson v. United States Secretary of Agriculture, 30 Ct. Int'l Trade 1742, 1744 n. 6, 462 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1335 n. 6 (2006); Former Employees of Quality Fabricating, Inc. v. United States Secretary of Labor, 27 Ct. Int'l Trade 419, 422-24, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1282, 1285-86 (2003); Former Employees of Siemens Information Communication Networks, Inc. v. Herman, 24 Ct. Int'l Trade 1201, 1205-08, 120 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1111-14 (2000). Additionally, the Court of International Trade, in Former Employees of Fisher Co. v. United StatesDepartment of Labor, 31 Ct. Int'l Trade 1272, 1278-79, 507 F. Supp. 2d 1321, 1329 (2007), held that equitable tolling applies to the Act's one-year deadline for filing a petition for TAA certification ( 19 U.S.C. § 2273(b)(1)).

However, this Court has held that the doctrine of equitable tolling applies to trade adjustment benefits cases. See Quality Fabricating, 27 CIT at __, 259 F. Supp.2d at 1285 (citing Former Employees of Siemens Info. Communication Networks, Inc. v. Sec'y Labor, 24 CIT 1201, 1204, 120 F. Supp.2d 1107, 1113-14 (2000)). This Court has stated, however, that "[e]quitable tolling is not available where the plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence," Siemens, 24 CIT at 1208, 120 F. Supp.2d at 1114 (citing Irwin v. Dep't Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96 (1990)), and "[w]hether a plaintiff has acted with due diligence is a factspecific inquiry, guided by reference to the hypothetical reasonable person."

Notwithstanding plaintiffs' arguments that equitable remedies should be extended in the case at bar in accordance with the test articulated by Quality Fabricating, the Court finds that the efforts exhibited by the Sonoco plaintiffs to gather information about their NAFTA-TAA petition fails to approach the level of diligence put forth by the plaintiffs in Quality Fabricating, or that of a hypothetical reasonable person who was notified that his company would file a NAFTA-TAA petition on his behalf. See Former Employees of Siemens Info. Communication Networks, Inc. v. Herman, Sec'y, United States Dep't of Labor, 24 CIT 1201, 1208, 120 F. Supp.2d 1107, 1114 (2000) (stating that "[w]hether a plaintiff has acted with due diligence is a fact-specific inquiry, guided by reference to the hypothetical reasonable person") (citing Dodds v. Cigna Sec., Inc., 12 F.3d 346, 350 (2d Cir. 1993); Valverde v. Stinson, 224 F.3d 129, 134 n. 4 (2d Cir. 2000)). In Quality Fabricating, the plaintiffs mailed their NAFTA-TAA petition to Labor, while a former employee of Quality, Margaret Miller continuously checked the DOL website from the time of filing.

Defendant has produced no such evidence. Previous court decisions have repeatedly allowed equitable tolling in TAA cases. See, e.g., Former Employees of Sonoco Prods. Co. v. Chao, 372 F.3d 1291, 1296-98 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding sixty-day time limit for filing suit in labor TAA cases may be equitably tolled); Former Employees of Quality Fabricating, Inc. v. U.S. Sec. of Labor, 27 CIT ___, ___, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1282, 1285-86 (2003) (equitably tolling the statute of limitations in TAA case where Department of Labor made misrepresentations to plaintiff about how she was to obtain notice of final determination);Former Employees of Siemens Info. Comm. Networks, Inc. v. Herman, 24 CIT 1201, 1208, 120 F. Supp. 2d. 1107, 1113 (2000) ("Finally, the relevant legislative history fails to disclose any intent on the part of Congress to prohibit equitable tolling. Indeed, the remedial purpose of the trade adjustment assistance program supports the conclusion that equitable tolling is available in this context.") (citation omitted). The Court notes that the precise issue in this case is one of first impression in the CIT. No court has ruled on whether equitable tolling is available with respect to an applicant's failure to comply with 19 U.S.C. § 2401e(a)(1)'s ninety-day statutory deadline.

Mem. in Supp. of Pl.s' Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss ("Pl.'s Br.") at 6. In Former Empl. of Siemens Info. Comm. Networks, Inc. v. Herman, 24 CIT 1201, 120 F. Supp.2d 1107 (2000) the court explained: Equitable tolling is generally limited to situations where a claimant has actively pursued judicial relief by filing a defective pleading within the statutory time period, or where a claimant has been "induced or tricked by his adversary's misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass."

See Irwin, 498 U.S. at 95, 111 S.Ct. 453.Former Employees of Siemens Info. Communication Networks, Inc. v. Herman, 120 F.Supp.2d 1107, 1113 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2000). We concur with this reasoning.

"Due diligence is a 'fact specific inquiry, guided by reference to the hypothetical reasonable person.'" Williams v. Bd. of Review, 948 N.E.2d 561, 573 (Ill. 2011) (quoting Former Employees of Siemens Info. Commc'n Networks, Inc. v. Herman, 120 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1114)).

Equitable tolling is generally limited to situations either where a claimant "has been `induced or tricked by his adversary's misconduct into allowing the filing deadline to pass'" or "where a claimant has actively pursued judicial relief by filing a defective pleading within the statutory time period. . . ." Former Emps. of Siemens Info. Commc'n Networks, Inc. v. Herman, 24 CIT 1201, 1208, 120 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1114 (2000) (quoting Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96 (1990) (" Irwin")). In order to assert equitable tolling, the party claiming it must show that it has been diligent in preserving its legal rights.

Santa Maria v. Pacific Bell, 202 F.3d 1170, 1178 (9th Cir. 2000). This court held in Former Employees of Siemens Info. Communication Networks, Inc. v. Herman, 120 F. Supp.2d 1107, 111314 (CIT 2000), that the doctrine of equitable tolling is available in NAFTA TAA cases because "the remedial purpose of the trade adjustment assistance program . . . supports the conclusion that equitable tolling is available" in an action challenging a final determination of the Secretary of Labor regarding worker eligibility for TAA. Id. The court in Siemens ultimately held that equitable tolling was not available to the plaintiffs in that case because they failed to act with due diligence in pursuing their claim.Id.

guided by reference to the hypothetical reasonable person [ ]' * * *." Williams, 241 Ill.2d at 372 (quoting Former Employees of Siemens Information Communication Networks, Inc. v. Herman, 24 Ct. Int'l Trade 1201, 1208 (2000)). But, "where the evidence leaves no room for a reasonable difference of opinion, the court may properly resolve such issues as a matter of law."