Don’t Forget About State Courts
Transnational litigation in the United States is often thought of as a matter for the federal courts. While it is true that many transnational cases end up in federal courts, state courts routinely hear transnational cases too. Scholars have started to catch on, with recent papers studying state courts’ approaches to the presumption against extraterritoriality,…
Continue ReadingA Primer on Service of Process
Serving process on a defendant does two things: (1) it asserts the court’s authority over the defendant; and (2) it provides the defendant with notice of the lawsuit. In the United States, process can be served by private parties. But many foreign states regard service as a public act that can be done only by…
Continue ReadingIs the Treaty Supremacy Rule Really Dead?
In Medellín v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a non-self-executing treaty does not supersede conflicting state law, or perhaps that courts cannot enforce non-self-executing treaties to override conflicting state laws. After Medellín, one would have expected state courts in treaty supremacy cases to begin their analyses by determining whether a treaty is self-executing….
Continue ReadingThe Extraterritorial Application of State Wage and Hour Laws
Many U.S. states have enacted wage and hour laws. These laws generally set a minimum wage and require employers to pay overtime. When a company headquartered in one state hires an employee to perform work in a foreign country, however, it is not always clear which jurisdiction’s laws will apply. Is the payment of wages…
Continue ReadingColorado Court Holds That Forum Non Conveniens Dismissal Is Not Preclusive
When a court in the United States grants a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, finding that a plaintiff’s claims should be litigated abroad, may the plaintiff instead choose to refile its claims in another U.S. jurisdiction? The answer will often be yes because the forum non conveniens dismissal does not have issue preclusive…
Continue ReadingWhen Should Federal Common Law Govern Transnational Litigation?
The conventional wisdom is that transnational litigation “can trigger foreign relations concerns.” Because the federal government has primary responsibility for the United States’ relations with other nations, the question naturally arises whether federal law should govern such litigation even when neither a federal statute, nor the U.S. Constitution, nor a treaty is applicable. Currently, as…
Continue ReadingA Primer on State Law in Transnational Litigation
[Editors: This post is one in a series of Primers on topics in transnational litigation. Primers on each of the topics listed in the Topics menu are planned, and some already appear on the relevant topic pages.] The procedural and substantive rules that U.S. courts apply in transnational litigation come from many sources, including the…
Continue ReadingSubstituted Service and the Hague Service Convention
Can state law be used to avoid a federal treaty, even though the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties supreme over state law? The somewhat surprising answer is yes—at least when it comes to the Hague Service Convention and state rules on substituted service. The Hague Service Convention governs transnational service of process…
Continue ReadingState Doctrines of Forum Non Conveniens: Beyond Gulf Oil
State courts have their own doctrines for addressing transnational litigation, including their own doctrines of forum non conveniens (FNC). While a majority of states today apply a version of FNC like that of the federal courts, we found that 17 states—fully one third—depart from the Gulf Oil framework in one or more ways.
Continue ReadingWhat Should Happen Next in Cassirer?
Most of the procedural questions that arise in domestic litigation have a counterpart in transnational litigation. In Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, the Supreme Court confronted the transnational counterpart to Klaxon v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co., a much-debated choice-of-law case decided in 1941. As Justice Kagan noted in her opinion for a unanimous Court, “[a]lthough…
Continue Reading