Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) removes sovereign immunity in actions involving personal injury or death resulting from an act of state-sponsored terrorism, 28 U.S.C. 1605A. Subsection 1610(g) allows plaintiffs with a judgment against a state sponsor of terrorism to attach and execute the judgment against property of the foreign state itself and any agency and instrumentality of the state. The plaintiffs, relatives of men who were kidnapped and murdered in 2004 by al-Qaeda, while working as U.S. military contractors in Iraq, obtained a default judgment under FSIA for $413 million. A month later, the court clerk sent a copy of the default judgment to the Syrian Foreign Ministry via a private delivery service; the delivery was rejected. The next day, Syria filed an appeal challenging the district court’s personal jurisdiction. The court stayed enforcement pending appeal. The District of Columbia Circuit found personal jurisdiction proper and affirmed the default judgment; found that a “reasonable time” had passed after entry of judgment and notice to Syria; and authorized attachment and execution of the judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed registration of the judgment in Illinois and the lower court’s issuance of a “turn over” order, rejecting the objections of other claimants of the Syrian assets View "Wyatt v. Gates" on Justia Law

In 2009, on Highway 101 in Monterey County, a bus driver lost control of the vehicle, which collided with bridge rails. The bus, carrying 34 French tourists, rolled; 18 occupants were ejected. Several were thrown over the bridge onto railroad tracks. The driver and four passengers were killed; 21 were severely injured. Capitales Tours and other defendants moved to dismiss or stay California lawsuits, asserting that France was the suitable forum. Plaintiffs argued that most of the documents and witnesses were in California, and that medical personnel and hospitals would likely receive nothing if the cases were transferred. There were more than $5 million in outstanding medical bills. The court found that public and private interest factors favored France because plaintiffs sought application of the French Tourism Code and would require translation. The court stayed the actions for one year. If France accepted jurisdiction, the actions would be dismissed. Capitales initiated proceedings in Paris, but the pretrial judge invoked lis pendens, because the Monterey court had not completely declined jurisdiction. While appeal was pending in France, the California court of appeal affirmed the stay. On remittitur, Capitales moved to dismiss, citing plaintiffs’ failure to initiate proceedings in France and resistance to their jurisdiction. The court dismissed. The court of appeal reversed, holding that further proceedings are necessary before dismissal. View "Auffert v. Capitales Tours" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, investment funds, filed suit seeking, by ex parte application, to discover certain documents from the defendant American and international accounting firms relating to audits conducted by their Middle Eastern affiliates. 28 U.S.C. 1782 provides assistance to litigants in proceedings before foreign and international tribunals. The statute authorizes a district court, “upon the application of any interested person,” to order a party “found” in the judicial district in which the court sits to produce discovery “for use” in a foreign proceeding. The court concluded that (1) assuming arguendo that the funds were “interested person[s]” in ongoing foreign proceedings, the funds did not establish that the evidence they sought was “for use” in those proceedings; and (2) the district court did not err in finding that additional proceedings that the funds asserted they intended to initiate were not “within reasonable contemplation” at the time the application was made. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the application. View "Certain Funds v. KPMG LLP" on Justia Law

Nippon Steel filed suit, charging POSCO with patent infringement and unfair competition. The court entered a protective order prohibiting cross-use of confidential materials which “shall be used by the receiving Party solely for purposes of the prosecution or defense of this action.” POSCO later produced several million pages of documents containing confidential information. Nippon also sued POSCO (based in Korea) in Japan for alleged trade secret misappropriation. POSCO filed a declaratory judgment action in Korea. Discovery in U.S. federal courts is more generous than in Japan and Korea, so Nippon moved the court to modify its discovery protective order for the purposes of providing foreign counsel in the Japanese and Korean actions approximately 200 pages of proprietary documentation relating to POSCO’s manufacturing process. Based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the balancing framework for modifying discovery orders, a special master concluded that modification should be granted, subject to restrictions to keep the information confidential. Among the restrictions: “[b]efore the documents may be submitted to a foreign court, the court must identify the information and agree that it would be maintained as confidential and restricted from third party access.” The district court and Federal Circuit affirmed. View "In re: Posco" on Justia Law

In "Hahn v. Diaz-Barba," (194 Cal.App.4th 1177 (2011)), the Court of Appeal affirmed an order, issued under the forum non conveniens doctrine, staying an action against residents of California for tortious interference with contract and related claims for the sale of an interest in a Mexican business. In this petition, the issue was whether the court erred by granting plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay on the ground Mexican courts dismissed two separate suits they filed in that country, making it an unavailable alternate forum. Defendants contended the ruling was erroneous because the evidence showed plaintiffs did not prosecute their action in Mexico in good faith. Among other things, defendants claimed they unreasonably delayed filing suit in Mexico and purposely drafted deficient complaints to ensure their rejection. Additionally, defendants argued the court prejudicially erred by denying their request to cross-examine the independent expert it appointed on Mexican law. After review, the California Court of Appeal concluded defendants' contentions lacked merit, and thus denied the petition. View "Diaz-Barba v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her complaint for failure to effect service of process as required under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1608(a)(3). In view of the resulting prejudice to plaintiff and the absence of any relevant prejudice to the Embassy of Zambia of allowing a further effort at service, the court concluded that that dismissal was too extreme a remedy because plaintiff's attempts at service came so close to strict compliance with the FSIA as to demonstrate a good faith effort at timely compliance amidst the sometimes confusing directions from the district court. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Barot v. Embassy of Zambia" on Justia Law

After Venezuela forcibly seized oil rigs belonging to the Venezuelan subsidiary of an American corporation, both the parent and subsidiary filed suit in the United States asserting jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1604, 1605-1607, expropriation and commercial activity exceptions. The district court granted Venezuela's motion to dismiss as to the subsidiary's expropriation claim, but denied the motion in all other respects. The court concluded that the district court correctly concluded that the parent corporation had sufficient rights in its subsidiary's property to support its expropriation claim; but the district court should have allowed the claim to proceed because the subsidiary's expropriation claim is neither "wholly substantial" nor "frivolous" under this Circuit's standard for surviving a motion to dismiss in an FSIA case; and the district court should have granted the motion to dismiss with respect the commercial activity exception where the subsidiary's commercial activity had no "direct effect" in the United States, which is required by the FSIA to defeat sovereign immunity. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Helmerich & Payne Int'l Drilling v. Bolivarian Rep. of Venezuela" on Justia Law

Expander Global conducts no business and is merely a holding company for its wholly owned subsidiary, Expander SystemSweden, another Swedish corporation. Expander Sweden wholly owns Expander Americas. Those companies manufacture industrial pins used in heavy machinery. In 2010, Eagle entered into an Independent Contractor Agreement with Expander Americas to provide consulting services. The Agreement led to a relationship between Global and Bakker, Eagle’s sole owner, who acted as a project manager and as secretary of the Global Board of Directors. In 2011, Global terminated Bakker from his positions and its agreement with Eagle. Eagle sued Expander Americas, alleging breach of contract and promissory estoppel; Bakker sued Global for quantum meruit. The district court dismissed the quantum meruit action for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that Global did not have the requisite minimum contacts with Missouri to be subject to its Long-Arm Statute or to satisfy due process. It was not licensed to do business in the state; it did not advertise within the state; it did not send employees to the state; and no money was received or sent to the state. The court granted Expander Americas summary judgment on the remaining claims, based on the statute of frauds. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "Eagle Tech. v. Expander Americas, Inc." on Justia Law

The government filed a civil complaint seeking forfeiture of funds held in a brokerage account. The clerk entered a default against Appellants and all other potential claimants. The district court granted the government’s motion for entry of default and, concluding that Appellants could not allege a meritorious defense, refused to grant their motion to set aside the default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). The court did not specifically articulate any “extreme circumstances” justifying entry of default and default judgment. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) courts reviewing a Rule 60(b) motion must apply the factors outlined in Falk v. Allen to ensure that the “extreme circumstances” policy is recognized, but nothing in Rule 60(b) nor the Court’s precedent requires a district court to articulate on the record particular “extreme circumstances” before it denies a motion to set aside a default judgment; and (2) after applying the Falk factors, it is clear that Appellants had no meritorious defense, and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellants’ Rule 60(b)(1) motion. View "United States v. Aguilar" on Justia Law

CCC, an investment fund incorporated in Guernsey, a British Crown dependency in the English Channel, invested in residential mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Moonmouth purchased CCC shares for $60 million under a 2006 Subscription Agreement, which contained a forum selection clause giving Delaware state courts exclusive jurisdiction over any action and specifying that Delaware law was to govern. In 2008, CCC entered liquidation. A Guernsey court appointed liquidators, who sued Carlyle and others (plaintiffs in this action) in Guernsey for breach of fiduciary duties owed to CCC. Subsequent Transfer Agreements involving the parties released then-existing claims against Carlyle. In 2012, a Dutch law firm representing Moonmouth sent letters alleging that plaintiffs took unacceptable risks in connection with CCC-managed investments and that they would hold plaintiffs liable for damages sustained by investors in connection with CCC. Plaintiffs sought to enforce the Subscription Agreement’s forum selection clause and the Transfer Agreements’ releases. After removal to federal court, the district court remanded to state court. The Third Circuit affirmed. The Subscription Agreement’s forum selection clause pertains to the case, may be enforced against defendants, and may be invoked by plaintiffs; the Transfer Agreement provides an alternative ground supporting remand. View "Carlyle Inv, Mgmt., LLC v. Moonmouth Co., SA" on Justia Law