Justia International Law Opinion Summaries

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

BSDL petitioned the district court to confirm an arbitration award rendered against the government of Belize. The district court entered judgment in favor of BSDL. The arbitration award arises out of the alleged breach by Belize of a 2005 agreement between Belize and Belize Telemedia Limited, BSDL’s predecessor in interest. The court concluded that the language of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(6), arbitration exception makes clear that the agreement to arbitrate is severable from the underlying contract. In order to succeed in its claim that there was no “agreement made by the foreign state . . . to submit to arbitration,” Belize must show that the Prime Minister lacked authority to enter into the arbitration agreement. Belize has failed to do this and therefore, Belize failed to carry its burden of establishing that BSDL’s allegations do not bring this case within the FSIA’s arbitration exception. The court rejected Belize's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment. View "Belize Social Dev. Ltd. v. Government of Belize" on Justia Law

AVR, an Israeli corporation, and Interton, a Minnesota corporation, produce hearing aid technology, and entered into an Agreement, giving Interton a 20 percent interest in AVR. During negotiations, they discussed integrating AVR's DFC technology into Interton's products, and Interton's purchase of AVR's W.C. components. The Agreement incorporated terms indicating that the Agreement would be governed by the laws of the State of Israel and that “Any dispute between the parties relating to (or arising out of) the provisions of this Agreement … will be referred exclusively to the decision of a single arbitrator … bound by Israeli substantive law.” AVR commenced arbitration in Israel. Interton participated, but believed that disputes concerning DFC and W.C. were separate and not subject to arbitration. The Israeli Supreme Court rejected Interton's objection to the scope of arbitration, citing the "relating to (or arising out of)" language. An Israeli arbitrator awarded AVR $2,675,000 on its DFC and W.C. claims, plus fees and expenses. After the award became final in Israel, in accordance with the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 9 U.S.C. 201, AVR successfully petitioned the district court for recognition and enforcement in the US. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The Convention does not allow Interton to relitigate the scope of arbitration in an American court. View "AVR Commc'ns, Ltd. v. Am. Hearing Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Two men died in a 2005 shooting in Oaxaca, Mexico. Petitioner, a legal permanent resident of the U.S., where he had lived for more than 15 years was the shooter. Petitioner frequently traveled to Mexico, where his wife and children lived.The town clerk held a meeting. Petitioner’s family and a victim's family signed an agreement, drafted by the court, identifying Petitioner as the person “who committed the homicide” and providing that his family would pay 50,000 pesos to the victim's family. Petitioner’s wife understood “the agreement resolved the case," because the family of the other victim, “never claimed that Avelino committed any crime.” Unbeknownst to Petitioner, a cousin who was not a party to the agreement reported the homicide to the attorney general. Oaxacan authorities issued a warrant on charges of homicide with “unfair advantage." Meanwhile, Petitioner returned to the U.S., and lived openly under his own name. The Mexican government made no effort to locate him or to obtain extradition. In 2012, Mexico cited the “urgency” clause of the extradition treaty to request his arrest. Petitioner, who had obtained citizenship in 2010, was working to obtain permanent resident status for his family. He made several trips to Mexico to meet consular officials. Neither Mexican nor U.S. authorities detained him or informed him of the warrant. Petitioner was arrested in 2013, and certified as extraditable. He unsuccessfully sought habeas corpus, challenging certification of extraditability. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the treaty incorporates the Speedy Trial Clause. View "Martinez v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant, while in Venezuela, was convicted in absentia in Colombia of drug manufacturing and trafficking. Defendant was later extradited from Venezuela to Colombia and then the United States later transmitted a formal request to Colombia for the arrest and extradition of defendant to face the charge of conspiracy to manufacture and import five kilograms or more of cocaine into the United States. Defendant subsequently pled guilty to the conspiracy count and was sentenced to 648 months imprisonment, as well as fined $1 million. Defendant, currently 46 years old, challenged his sentence on the ground that it violates the United States government’s assurance that “a sentence of life imprisonment will not be sought or imposed” because the sentence exceeds defendant's life expectancy. The court concluded that any individual right that defendant may have under the terms of his extradition is only derivative through the state. Therefore, defendant would only have prudential standing to raise the claim that his sentence violated the terms of his extradition if Colombia first makes an official protest. Because defendant lacked prudential standing in this case, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Suarez" on Justia Law

Ortiz filed a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, seeking the return of his children to Mexico City. The children are currently residing in Chicago with Martinez, their mother. Martinez accused Ortiz of sexually molesting his seven-year-old daughter and asserted that their 16-year-old son had expressed a desire to remain in the United States. The district court denied the petition to return the children. After interviewing the children and hearing testimony from Martinez and a court appointed psychologist, the court found that Martinez had wrongfully removed the children from Mexico, but that an exception to the Convention’s mandatory-return rule applied with respect to each child. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Ortiz v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Dominican Republic and INDRHI for breach of contract and unjust enrichment related to an irrigation project in the Dominican Republic. After the district court entered a default judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendants moved to vacate the default judgment. The district court denied the motion and defendants appealed. While that appeal was pending, the Dominican Republic moved to vacate the default judgment for voidness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). The district court denied the motion on the merits, finding that the Dominican Republic had waived its sovereign immunity. The Dominican Republic appealed. In these consolidated appeals, the court concluded that the district court erred by denying the Dominican Republic’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate for voidness the default judgment entered against the foreign nation because at least one statutory exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1602-1611, applies; the district court abused its discretion by denying the Dominican Republic and INDRHI’s Rule 60(b)(1) motion to vacate for excusable neglect the default judgment entered against them because the factual findings underlying the district court's decision were unsupported by the record; and therefore, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Architectural Ingenieria Siglo XXI v. Dominican Republic" on Justia Law

Zivotofsky was born to U.S. citizens living in Jerusalem. Under the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 2003, 116 Stat. 1350, his mother asked Embassy officials to list his place of birth as “Israel” on his passport. Section 214(d) of the Act states for “purposes of the registration of birth, certification of nationality, or issuance of a passport of a United States citizen born in the city of Jerusalem, the Secretary shall, upon the request … record the place of birth as Israel.” Embassy officials refused to list Zivotofsky’s place of birth as “Israel,” citing the Executive Branch’s position that the U.S. does not recognize any country as having sovereignty over Jerusalem. The D. C. Circuit held the statute unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed. The President has the exclusive power to grant formal recognition to a foreign sovereign. The Court cited the Reception Clause, which directs that the President “shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers,” and the President’s additional Article II powers, to negotiate treaties and to nominate the Nation’s ambassadors and dispatch other diplomatic agents. The Constitution assigns the President, not Congress, means to effect recognition on his own initiative. The Nation must “speak . . . with one voice” regarding which governments are legitimate in the eyes of the United States and which are not, and only the Executive has the characteristic of unity at all times. If Congress may not pass a law, speaking in its own voice, effecting formal recognition, then it may not force the President, through section 214(d), to contradict his prior recognition determination in an official document issued by the Secretary of State. View "Zivotofsky v. Kerry" on Justia Law

When Brandy and Jeremy Moore divorced in 2014, the superior court granted sole legal and primary physical custody of their ten-year-old daughter to Brandy, and awarded Jeremy unrestricted visitation, including visitation to foreign countries. Jeremy proposed taking the child to Micronesia during his visitation period because he became involved with a Micronesian woman he met while he was stationed there with the Army. Brandy asked the superior court to limit Jeremy’s international visitation to countries that have ratified the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The superior court denied Brandy’s motion, and she appealed, arguing that the superior court abused its discretion by allowing unrestricted international visitation. She worried that if Jeremy absconded with the child to a non-signatory country, the child will then be beyond the jurisdiction of the Alaska court to enforce the custody order. But because the superior court made an express finding that Jeremy’s conduct raised no concerns about the safety and return of the child, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Moore v. Moore" on Justia Law

Iraq native al-Maliki became a United States citizen, but visited his children, ages 12 and three, in Syria. He was charged under 18 U.S.C. 2423(c) and (e), which at the time, punished any U.S. citizen who traveled in foreign commerce, and engaged in any illicit sexual conduct, which included noncommercial sexual acts with a minor, or any attempts to do the same. Al-Maliki denied all of the charges, and a trial began. A court-ordered psychological evaluation, deemed al-Maliki “manipulative and dishonest” and assessed his “risk for future sexual acting out” as “moderate to high.” He was convicted. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, characterizing his challenge to the statute as exceeding Congress’s authority under the Foreign Commerce Clause, a “close call.” The court applied plain error review and found the law not “obviously” unconstitutional. View "United States v. al-Maliki" on Justia Law