Justia International Law Opinion Summaries

The Republic appealed the district court's dismissal of its claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., the Foreign Practices Act (FCPA), 15 U.S.C. 78dd-1 et seq., and common law. The Republic filed suit against defendants, alleging that they conspired with Iraq's former president, Saddam Hussein and others, to corrupt and plunder an United Nations humanitarian program called Oil-for-Food. The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and declined to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining claims. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the RICO claims were properly dismissed on the basis of in pari delicto; the Republic does not have a right of action under the FDCPA; and the common-law claims arose under state law, and the district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. View "The Republic of Iraq v. ABB AG" on Justia Law

In 1998 Kashamu, a dual citizen of Nigeria and Benin, was charged as the leader of a conspiracy to import and distribute heroin. Kashamu never entered the U.S. His location was unknown. The government did not ask that he be tried in absentia. Eleven other defendants pleaded guilty; one was convicted. Months later, Kashamu was arrested in England. There were two unsuccessful extradition proceedings. After the 2003 ruling, Kashamu left England. Six years later, in Chicago district court, he moved to dismiss the indictment based on the English judge's findings, concerning possible confusion between Kashamu and his brother. The Seventh Circuit rejected his arguments. Kashamu remains in Nigeria, a businessman and a ruling party politician. Although there is an extradition treaty, the government has made no effort to extradite him. In 2014 Kashamu sought to dismiss on the grounds that the court has no personal jurisdiction because he has never been in the U.S. and that the Sixth Amendment speedy-trial clause bars prosecution. The Seventh Circuit again disagreed. Even if Kashamu has constitutional rights, they are not violated. The court has no current jurisdiction, but should he come to the U.S., he can be tried. Denial of a motion to dismiss on speedy-trial grounds is a nonappealable interlocutory order; until proceedings are complete, the causes and duration of the delay, the defendant’s responsibility for it, and the harm from the delay, cannot be determined. At any time “he had only to show up” to obtain resolution of his guilt or innocence. View "Kashamu v. Norgle" on Justia Law

This appeal concerns Ex-Im Bank's efforts to execute on a $21 million judgment in its favor against Grenada. Grenada had waived its sovereign immunity from suit in federal court but, nonetheless, Ex-Im Bank has encountered obstacles in attempting to enforce the judgment in the United States under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1602-1611. The court concluded that: the question whether the Grynberg Funds may be attached is moot because those funds have already been disbursed; the district court properly vacated the restraining notices against the Restrained Entities because, with one possible exception, the Restrained Funds are not "used for commercial activity in the United States"; and because the record does not provide an adequate basis to determine whether the IATA Funds are used for commercial activity in the United States and whether they belong to Grenada, the court vacated the denial of post-judgment discovery to these funds, and remanded for the district court to reassess whether to permit further discovery. Accordingly, the court dismissed in part, affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Export-Import Bank of the Republic of China v. Grenada" on Justia Law

The Swareks filed suit against Herman Derr and DPI in Chancery Court, alleging that Derr and his corporation breached a contract for the sale of Mississippi farmland. Derr died while the action was pending and years later, Derr Heirs filed suit against the Swareks in the German Regional Court seeking a declaratory judgment that they were not liable for any claims arising from the putative land contract. After the initiation of the German lawsuit but before the decision of the Regional Court, the Swareks dismissed all of their claims against Derr with prejudice and withdrew a pending motion to substitute the Derr Heirs in the Mississippi action. The Regional Court dismissed the Derr Heirs' claim but the German Higher Regional Court reversed. Subsequently, the Derr Heirs returned to Mississippi and attempted to enforce a German order for costs in federal district court. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to enforce the German cost award where the Higher Regional Court's decision to sidestep the comity determination and readjudicate claims that had already been settled in the Chancery Court violated the Mississippi public policy of res judicata and the Swarek's right to permanently terminate their claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Derr, et al. v. Swarek, et al." on Justia Law

Wife filed suit against husband under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, TIAS No. 11670, S Treaty Doc. No. 99-11, as implemented by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 42 U.S.C. 11601 et seq., after husband removed their four children from Mexico to the United States. The district court concluded that the habitual residence of the children at the time of the abduction was in Mexico. Further, the children were wrongfully removed in violation of wife's right of custody under Mexican law. Wife enjoyed rights of custody under Mexican law and she was actively exercising those rights at the time of the children's abduction. Therefore, the district court ordered the children returned to the United States. Determining that it had jurisdiction, the court concluded that there was no clear error in the district court's factual findings and, after de novo review of the district court's conclusions of law resulting in the grant of wife's petition, the court found no error of law in that result. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Seaman v. Peterson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Kenya in district court for breach of contract based on Kenya's underpayment of rewards owed to him. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1604, barred plaintiff's suit. In this case, Kenya did not waive its immunity in U.S. courts and Kenya's alleged breach of contract lacks the connection to the United States required by the commercial activity exception to the FSIA. View "Odhiambo v. Republic of Kenya, et al." on Justia Law

Berezowsky and Rendon, both Mexican nationals, met in Mexico in 2008. Berezowsky learned that she was pregnant and the couple became engaged. Their relationship deteriorated. Berezowsky moved to her parents’ home in Texas, and cut off communication with Rendon. Rendon made repeated attempts to gain information about his unborn child, but received no response. Berezowsky gave birth to P in 2009 in Texas. A month later, Rendon learned his child’s name, sex, and date of birth through a private investigator. At least 12 different courts in the U.S. and Mexico have been involved in the ensuing custody dispute. Both parties have obtained orders by default, which the other party has subsequently appealed. Both parties continued to escalate their efforts. In 2012, Berezowsky filed a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The district court held that P had been wrongfully removed from Mexico and ordered his immediate return. The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss. Berezowsky failed to meet her burden of establishing that Mexico was P’s place of habitual residence.View "Berezowsky v. Ojeda" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellee William Sloan, a citizen of the United States, and plaintiff-appellant Elaine Murphy, a citizen of Ireland, were married in California in 2000. They lived together in Mill Valley, California, and had a daughter, E.S., in 2005. In October 2009, the couple separated, with Sloan moving to a different bedroom in their house. In 2010, Murphy and Sloan enrolled E.S. in a private California preschool for the next fall. But plans changed in the spring after Murphy proposed moving to Ireland so that she (Murphy) could go back to school. Murphy and Sloan discussed the move to Ireland as a "trial period," and Sloan wrote to both the private preschool and the public school district to inform them of E.S.'s move and the temporary nature of the plan. Visitation between the parents worked for several years until Murphy took E.S. with her on a trip to visit Murphy's boyfriend in Asia. Sloan lost contact with Murphy during that time. On a regularly scheduled visit to E.S. in Ireland, Sloan grew concerned about E.S.'s absences from school when Murphy announced she would again be going to Asia with Murphy's boyfriend. Sloan took E.S. with him to the United States when he left Ireland. Murphy and Sloan agreed that Sloan told Murphy that he did not intend to return E.S. to Ireland, to which Murphy responded that if E.S. was going to live in the United States, Murphy would return to Mill Valley. Murphy took no action to compel E.S.'s return to Ireland for nearly three months, until September 2013, when she filed the action that led to this appeal. E.S. began third grade in Mill Valley in August 2013. In October 2013, the Superior Court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage, but left pending the state court action for purposes of issuing further orders regarding child custody, child support and spousal support. Murphy brought suit under the Hague Convention to compel E.S.'s return to Ireland, contending that Ireland was E.S.'s "habitual residence." The district court denied Murphy's petition after considering Murphy and Sloan's sworn declarations, testimony and documents presented at an evidentiary hearing and depositions of Murphy's boyfriend and an expert witness. It determined that the spring of 2010 was the last time that Sloan and Murphy had a shared, settled intent, which was that E.S. reside in California. The court concluded that "E.S. was, at the time of the alleged wrongful retention, and now remains, a habitual resident of the United States." The issue this case presented for the Ninth Circuit's review explored the significance of a "trial period" of residence on a child's "habitual residence" under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Murphy sought the return of E.S. to Ireland. After review, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court that E.S. was a habitual resident of the United States; "E.S.'s attachments to Ireland 'did not shift the locus of [E.S.'s] development[,] and . . . any acclimatization did not overcome the absence of a shared settled intention by the parents to abandon the United States as a habitual residence.'" View "Murphy v. Sloan" on Justia Law

In 2008, plaintiffs were driving a 2004 Jeep Cherokee in San Joaquin County, when the vehicle rolled over and the roof collapsed. Young sustained injuries, rendering her a permanent quadriplegic. Young’s daughter allegedly suffered physical and emotional harm. They filed suit, claiming that the roof and restraint systems were defectively designed. The vehicle at issue was designed, manufactured, and distributed by DaimlerChrysler Corporation (DCC), a former indirect subsidiary of Daimler. Among others, the complaint named Daimler and DCC as defendants. Daimler is a German public stock company that designs and manufactures Mercedes-Benz vehicles in Germany and has its principal place of business in Stuttgart. Before 1998, DCC was known as Chrysler Corporation. After a 1998 agreement, Chrysler Corporation became an indirect subsidiary of Daimler and changed its name to DCC. DCC was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan. It ceased to be a subsidiary of Daimler in 2007, changing its name to Chrysler LLC. Daimler is not a successor-in-interest to DCC or Chrysler LLC. Plaintiffs served Daimler with the complaint in accordance with the Hague Convention. The trial court quashed service for lack of personal jurisdiction over Daimler AG. The court of appeal affirmed, relying on the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman. View "Young v. Daimler AG" on Justia Law

In 1975, a pistol manufactured by MKEK malfunctioned, firing a bullet through Ohntrup’s hand while he loaded the gun. The court held the seller, Firearms Center and MKEK, which is wholly owned by the Republic of Turkey, jointly liable for $847,173.97 and required MKEK to indemnify Firearms Center. The Morgan law firm represented MKEK, but after appeal, sought to withdraw. The court permitted the individual lawyers to withdraw but required the firm to remain as counsel of record until MKEK hired substitute counsel. The Third Circuit affirmed, characterizing MKEK as an intractable litigant and stating that a communication gap would hamper post-judgment proceedings. The Ohntrups tried to collect their judgment; MKEK disregarded the Ohntrups’ discovery requests. The Ohntrups sought assistance from the State Department and pursued MKEK in Turkish courts, to no avail. In 2007, Ohntrup’s widow obtained a $16 million civil contempt judgment against MKEK that grows by $10,000 annually. Ohntrup’s judgments against MKEK are now worth about $25 million. In 2011, Ohntrup’s lawyers learned of a $16.2 million transaction in which a Minneapolis-based company. (Alliant), agreed to sell munitions manufacturing components to MKEK. Ohntrup obtained some discovery from Alliant, but the district court denied subsequent discovery requests. When Ohntrup renewed her post-judgment discovery efforts, Morgan was granted leave to withdraw. The Third Circuit affirmed the order granting leave to withdraw, but remanded the discovery order. The court erred when it relied upon the uncertainty surrounding the judgment creditor’s ability to attach the targeted property.View "Ohntrup v. Makina Ve Kimya Endustrisi Kur" on Justia Law