Mallory Decision Opens New Path for Personal Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court’s decision in Mallory re-opens the door to suing foreign companies in U.S. courts over disputes that arise in other countries. It may also have significant repercussions for personal jurisdiction doctrine more broadly.
Continue ReadingSupreme Court Decides Mallory v. Norfolk Southern
For prior TLB coverage of this case, see here. The Supreme Court (finally) issued a decision today in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern, holding that Pennsylvania’s corporate registration statute, which requires out-of-state businesses to consent to all-purpose jurisdiction in Pennsylvania courts, does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Alito joined Justice Gorsuch’s…
Continue ReadingSmagin‘s Surprises
Last week’s decision in Yegiazaryan v. Smagin was surprising in a number of respects, from the line-up of the Justices to the possible shift it signals in the presumption against extraterritoriality.
Continue ReadingTheir Beef Is with Burger King
The Justices have not yet given us good reasons to give up on International Shoe. Instead, their complaints are really about the doctrinal scaffolding that the Burger and Rehnquist Courts built on top of International Shoe in the 1980s.
Continue ReadingWaiting for Mallory
The Supreme Court’s recent dormant Commerce Clause decision may shed light on how the Justices are thinking about Mallory v. Norfolk Southern.
Continue ReadingFurther Developments in Smart Study
TLB has been following Smart Study v. Happy Party-001, a Chinese counterfeiting case in the Southern District of New York, since Judge Gregory Woods issued his thoughtful opinion last summer concluding that service by email on Chinese defendants is not permitted by the Hague Service Convention (a decision we covered in a prior blog post)….
Continue ReadingBoston Jury Awards $15.5 Million in a Transnational Human Rights Case
Last month we reported on a sensible decision by Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the District of Massachusetts rejecting a defendant’s vague invocations of international comity as a basis for abstention. That decision cleared the way for trial on the plaintiffs’ claims that the defendant, Jean Morose Viliena, targeted them and their families for extrajudicial…
Continue ReadingHappy Birthday to TLB!
On March 28, 2022, TLB published its first post. Since then, we have published 245 more. Over the past year, the site has received more than 32,000 visitors from 82 different countries. Roughly half of those readers are based in the United States. Our most frequent non-U.S. visitors are based (in rough order) in (1)…
Continue ReadingRejecting Comity-Based Abstention in Human Rights Cases
Defendants in transnational human rights cases may seek dismissal on a great many bases—so many, in fact, that it can be hard to keep them all straight. One growing source of confusion is the argument that a case should be dismissed based on “comity.” The problem is that comity isn’t a single doctrine. But because…
Continue ReadingAdmiralty’s Influence on Transnational Procedure
Admiralty was the original site of transnational litigation in U.S. courts. Given the breadth of admiralty jurisdiction, the federal courts developed a number of procedural tools for balancing international comity and practical concerns in these international business disputes. Just because a foreign ship showed up in a U.S. port, for instance, didn’t mean a U.S….
Continue Reading