Foreign States, Personal Jurisdiction, and the FSIA
A U.S. gas company has sued four Russian defendants in the Southern District of New York for seizing helium containers that the gas company had sent to Russia pursuant to a helium supply contract. One of the defendants, RusChemAlliance (RCA), moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The case is unusual because the plaintiff…
Continue ReadingFinding the Right International Comity Doctrine
In Salisbury v. Costco Wholesale Corp., plaintiffs brought a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging that Costco sold, as “100% agave,” tequilas that contain cheaper, non-agave alcohol. Plaintiffs based their allegations on a testing methodology known as SNIF-NMR, which identifies the plant origin of ethanol by measuring…
Continue ReadingPersonal Jurisdiction in Tennis Antitrust Case
Many professional athletes compete at the international level, and some have accused the governing bodies of various sports of unlawfully restricting global competition for their services. When athletes bring antitrust claims in U.S. courts, however, it can be difficult to establish personal jurisdiction over foreign sports organizations. In a recent decision, Judge Margaret M. Garnett…
Continue ReadingEmail Service for Emergency Measures vs. Default Judgments
As we have repeatedly pointed out on TLB, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) does not permit service by email on defendants in China whose mailing addresses are known because such service is not permitted by the Hague Service Convention. I have previously reported on Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV’s thoughtful analysis of this question…
Continue ReadingMaking a Mess of Service of Process
Last Friday, Magistrate Judge Paul Kohler (District of Utah) granted a motion for alternative service of process, allowing the plaintiff in Univera Brands, LLC v. Hawk Sports Industries, Germany, GmbH to serve the defendants through their U.S. lawyers and by email to an address in Germany. The decision is remarkable for the number of things…
Continue ReadingSuing Cuban Instrumentalities Under the Helms-Burton Act
Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), the agencies and instrumentalities of foreign states are generally immune from suit in U.S. courts unless one of the FSIA’s exceptions applies. But this past June, in Exxon Mobil Corp v. Corporación CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba), the Supreme Court held that the Helms-Burton Act abrogates the sovereign immunity of Cuban agencies and…
Continue ReadingDue Process and in rem Jurisdiction
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held in United States v. Nasri that Fifth Amendment due process is violated if a federal court exercises in rem jurisdiction but lacks custody or constructive control over the property. The district court, Judge Hayes (S.D. Cal.), had held to the contrary, and Judge Bennett dissented from the panel…
Continue ReadingFallout from Cisco in Human Rights Cases, Part I: Al Shimari
As regular readers know, last June the U.S. Supreme Court closed the door on modern human rights claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), holding in Cisco Systems Inc. v. Doe (2026) that the ATS’s implied cause of action does not cover such claims. In two posts, today and tomorrow, I consider recent lower-court developments…
Continue ReadingRecognizing Foreign Judgments: Of Personal Jurisdiction, Collateral Estoppel, and Judicial Discretion
In the United States, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is generally governed by state law. State law is largely uniform throughout the United States because most states have adopted one of two Uniform Acts. The acts raise fascinating questions of interpretation, and Judge Margaret M. Garnett (Southern District of New York) faced several…
Continue ReadingD.C. Circuit Holds Fuld Does Not Apply to District of Columbia
In July, the D.C. Circuit (Judge Justin Walker) held that the local courts of the District of Columbia are still constrained by the minimum contacts test for personal jurisdiction derived from International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) and not by the “more flexible” test permitted by the Fifth Amendment after Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization…
Continue Reading