Highlights from the Media Coverage of ZF Automotive
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. has generated discussion, criticism, and approval in the transnational litigation and international arbitration communities. Writing for the Court, Justice Barrett relied on the meaning of the term “tribunal,” specifically when paired with “foreign” or “international,” to resolve a major circuit split and…
Continue ReadingZF Automotive: Closing a Door, Opening a Window
The Supreme Court’s decision in ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. drew a bright line for a statute that is otherwise regulated almost entirely by judicial discretion. In a terse and unanimous opinion, Justice Barrett wrote that Section 1782 does not permit district courts to order discovery for use in private international arbitration. The…
Continue ReadingNinth Circuit Deepens Split over Extraterritoriality of Civil RICO
In a recent decision, Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, the Ninth Circuit weighed in on a circuit split involving the extraterritorial application of RICO’s private right of action. In determining whether there is injury to business or property in the United States, the court rejected the Seventh Circuit’s residency-based test, siding instead with the Second and Third…
Continue ReadingZF Automotive: A Practitioner’s Perspective
As a practitioner in commercial litigation with an emphasis on China-related cross-border disputes, I have been eagerly anticipating the Supreme Court’s decision in ZF Automotive US Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., resolving a circuit split on the applicability of Section 1782 discovery to private international arbitration. In this post, I share the practitioner’s perspective on what…
Continue ReadingThe Dogs that Didn’t Bark in ZF Automotive
I confess I’m not big on blogs. They often do more mischief than good, and posts can distract folks from their day jobs (whether research or deaning). Then again, who can say no to a friendly request from good people like Maggie, Ingrid, Bill and John? Plus, several of us appeared in the case (George…
Continue ReadingZF Automotive: Predictable Outcome, Lackluster Reasoning
Whatever one may think of it, the Court’s decision in ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. is not a surprise. It reflects the forceful intervention of the U.S. Government and aligns well with the drift of the Court’s conduct of oral argument in the case. Even the constituency most apt to want to use…
Continue ReadingSupreme Court Holds in ZF Automotive That Section 1782 Does Not Apply to International Arbitration
The Supreme Court held today that Section 1782 does not apply to international arbitration—neither international commercial arbitration nor investor-state arbitration. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett held that only governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative bodies fall within the scope of the provision. Section 1782 authorizes federal district courts to order persons residing or found within…
Continue ReadingDistrict Court Holds that Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Does Not Apply Extraterritorially
In a recent decision, Eichhorn-Burkhard v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc., a district court in Kansas (Judge Julie Robinson) held that the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) does not apply extraterritorially to a U.S. company’s sales of dog food in Europe. The case provides a nice illustration of how U.S. courts apply the presumption against extraterritoriality to…
Continue ReadingDoe v. Meta and the Future of the Communications Decency Act
Two law firms recently filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of Rohingya refugees in the United States seeking at least $150 billion in compensatory damages from Meta (formerly Facebook). The plaintiffs in Doe v. Meta allege that Meta’s algorithms were designed to promote hate speech and misinformation about the Rohingya, a Muslim-minority population in Myanmar…
Continue ReadingDistrict Court Quashes Substituted Service on Chinese Defendant
In a recent decision, Topstone Communications, Inc. v. Chenyi Xu, a federal court in Texas (Judge Keith Ellison) held that a plaintiff headquartered in Texas must serve defendants based in China by using the Hague Service Convention. The opinion provides a good analysis of how both substituted service on a state official and service by email…
Continue Reading