Justia International Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Ismail Yaman, a Turkish citizen, and respondent Linda Yaman, a United States citizen, were married in Turkey in August 2000, and respondent became a Turkish citizen in October 2000. Their first child, K.Y., was born in March 2002, in the United States. In January 2003, the family moved to Turkey. The couple’s second child, E.Y., was born in Turkey in August 2003. In early to mid-2004, the respondent became suspicious that petitioner was sexually abusing their older child. In December 2004, the parties separated, and early the next year, petitioner initiated divorce proceedings in the Turkish Family Court. On March 13, 2006, after conducting six hearings in which the court considered evidence from both parties and from the independent experts, the Turkish court rejected respondent’s claim that petitioner had abused the children, and issued an order granting sole legal custody of the children to petitioner and granting respondent visitation. Respondent appealed the order to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Turkey on two occasions, and both times the appellate court affirmed the family court’s order. The family court finalized its order in 2007. Within weeks after the family court’s order became final, and without notice to petitioner, respondent fled Turkey with the children by engaging the services of a self-proclaimed “snatch back” specialist. After years of searching, petitioner, who remained in Turkey, was informed in December 2011 that respondent and the children were living in New Hampshire. Petitioner filed a petition pursuant to Article 2 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction2 and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA) with the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Following a three-day evidentiary hearing, the court ruled that the return of the children to Turkey would not pose a grave risk of harm to them because respondent had not established that petitioner abused them. The court also found, however, that the respondent had established that the children were “settled” in New Hampshire within the meaning of Article 12 of the Hague Convention; in light of this finding, the court ruled that it lacked the authority to order the children’s return to Turkey. Alternatively, the court ruled that, given the facts of the case, even if it did have the authority to do so, it would not order the return of the children to Turkey. Petitioner appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which determined that the district court erred in ruling that it lacked authority to order the return of “settled” children, but affirmed the trial court’s alternative ruling denying return of the children on equitable grounds as a sustainable exercise of discretion. After its review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not err in granting enforcement of the Turkish custody order. View "In the Matter of Ismail Yaman and Linda Yaman" on Justia Law

A German court denied Father's petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, T.I.A.S. No. 11,670, 1343 U.N.T.S. 98, and a German appellate court affirmed. Consequently, Mother did not have to return the children to North Carolina. On a one-month visit to North Carolina, Father decided to keep the children. The district court accorded comity to the German appellate court's decision and granted Mother's Hague petition. The children were ordered to return to Germany. Father appealed. The court rejected Father's arguments on appeal and concluded that the district court properly extended comity because the German court's decision neither clearly misinterpreted the Hague Convention nor failed to meet a minimum standard of reasonableness. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Smedley v. Smedley" on Justia Law

In 2009, Illinois State Police Officer Zeigler pulled over Mordi’s vehicle. A trained dog discovered drugs in the car. Zeigler arrested Mordi, took him to the station, and left him in an interrogation room. Other officers interviewed Mordi. Mordi is a Nigerian national. Nigeria and the U.S. are parties to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Convention. Mordi told Zeigler that his name was Nigerian, but Mordi does not recall mentioning that he was a Nigerian national. Zeigler listed Mordi’s place of birth as Nigeria, but asserts that he was unaware of Mordi’s citizenship. Mordi did tell the interviewing officers about his citizenship. Immigration and Customs Enforcement filed a detainer notice and federal authorities took over the prosecution. Mordi was represented by a federal public defender, who was aware of his nationality. Mordi pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a controlled substance and is serving a sentence. At no point during criminal proceedings was he informed about his right under the Convention to have the Nigerian consulate notified about his status. He did not learn about the Convention until a year later, from another inmate. He wrote to the Nigerian consulate, but did not follow through. Mordi instituted, but dismissed, habeas proceedings, arguing ineffective assistance. He filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court denied summary judgment motions by Zeigler and the interviewing officers, based on qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that the specific legal principle on which this case turns was not clearly established. View "Mordi v. Zeigler" on Justia Law

After victims of a terrorist kidnapping in Colombia (plaintiffs) received a nine-figure default judgment against their captor (FARC), they attempted to collect through a series of ex parte garnishments and executions against third parties with purported illicit ties to the captor. Third-party claimants appealed the various orders granting plaintiffs' motions seeking to collect on their judgment using claimants' assets and denying the motions filed by claimants seeking relief. The court concluded that plaintiffs should have provided formal notice of the garnishment and execution proceedings to the owners of the property, as Florida law provides; the district court incorrectly concluded that no process was due to the owners of the property here; ultimately, claimants bear their share of the blame for either sitting on their rights to challenge the allegations against them or simply failing to rebut the changes; and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court with the exception of the turnover judgment against Brunello Ltd.'s account. View "Stansell, et al. v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia, (FARC), et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, family members or trustees of the estates of victims of state-sponsored terrorism, seek to enforce their 2009 Florida state court judgment obtained against Cuba by attaching the blocked assets of that state under section 201 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA), 28 U.S.C. 1610 note. Plaintiffs seek to satisfy the underlying judgment from electronic fund transfers (EFTs) blocked under the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 515. The court concluded that the EFTs are not attachable under section 201 because no terrorist party or agency or instrumentality thereof has a property interest in the EFTs. In this case, it is undisputed that no Cuban entity transmitted any of the blocked EFTs directly to the blocking bank. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for plaintiffs and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hausler et al., v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al." on Justia Law

Halo is a supplier of electronic components and owns three patents directed to surface mount electronic packages containing transformers for mounting on a printed circuit board inside electronic devices such as computers and internet routers. Halo alleged that Pulse infringed its patents. The district court entered summary judgment that Pulse did not sell or offer to sell certain accused products within the U.S. and, therefore, did not directly infringe, and that that Pulse’s infringement with respect to accused products that Pulse sold and delivered outside the U.S. was not willful. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Pulse did not sell or offer to sell within the U.S. those accused products that Pulse manufactured, shipped, and delivered outside the U.S., so there was no direct infringement by those products. The court upheld the constructions of the claim limitations “electronic surface mount package” and “contour element,” found the patents not invalid for obviousness, and affirmed the judgment of direct infringement with respect to products that Pulse delivered in the U.S. and the judgment of inducement with respect to products that Pulse delivered outside the U.S. but were ultimately imported by others. View "Halo Elec., Inc. v. Pulse Elec., Inc." on Justia Law

The Bra Top, which is imported by Victoria’s Secret, and the Bodyshaper, imported by Lerner. Both are sleeveless garments, made of knit fabric, worn as tops. Both are designed for body coverage and bust support, without the need for a garment on top or a separate brassiere underneath. The Court of International Trade classified them under heading 6114 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which covers “other garments, knitted or crocheted.” The importers contend that the garments should have been classified under heading 6212, which covers “brassieres, girdles, corsets, braces, suspenders, garters and similar articles and parts thereof.” The Federal Circuit affirmed the classification under heading 6212. The Bra Top and Bodyshaper are not “similar articles” under heading 6212 because they do not possess the unifying characteristics of the listed items in that heading. View "Victoria's Secret Direct, LLC v. United States" on Justia Law

After three employees of Drummond's coal mining operations in Colombia were murdered, the heirs filed suit under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350; the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA), 28 U.S.C. 1350 note section 2(a); and the wrongful death law of Columbia. Plaintiffs alleged that the murders were committed by paramilitaries of an organization affiliated with Colombia's military, AUC. The AUC provided security against guerilla attacks for Drummond's coal mining facility and operations. Plaintiffs claimed the the murders occurred during a violent armed conflict between the AUC and a leftist guerilla organization, FARC. The district court concluded that plaintiffs' claims were barred by res judicata. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims for violation of the law of nations which are brought under the ATS under Rule 12(b)(1); affirmed the district court's decision to strike the Mothers' declarations submitted along with plaintiffs' response opposing defendants' motion for summary judgment; and affirmed the district court's order granting defendants' motion to dismiss and for summary judgment on the TVPA and Colombian wrongful death claims. View "Baloco, et al. v. Drummond Co., Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Freidrich and Davis, both American citizens, were passengers on a U.S. Airways flight in 2010 from Philadelphia to Munich, Germany. Davis formerly lived in Pennsylvania, but now lives in Germany. On his 2012 Registration and Ballot Request form, Davis checked a box that declared his intent to return to the U.S. Freidrich alleges that, during the flight, Davis left his seat and, while standing in the aisle waiting to use the lavatory, he fell on her, breaking her arm. In 2012, Freidrich filed suit against Davis for her injuries in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania based on diversity jurisdiction. The court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Third Circuit affirmed. Freidrich argued that, because Davis manifested his intent to return to the U.S., he did not produce sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that his domicile continued to be Pennsylvania. Rejecting the argument, the court upheld a finding of a German domicile, based upon both Davis’ actions and his declarations of intent. View "Freidrich v. Davis" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, victims of terrorist attacks in Israel by Hamas, filed suit against NatWest, claiming that NatWest provided material support and resources to a terrorist organization in violation of the Antiterrorism Act (ATA), 18 U.S.C. 2331(1)(A), 2333(a), and 2339B(a)(1), and collected and provided funds for the financing of terrorism in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2331(1)(A), 2333(a), and 2339C. Plaintiffs alleged that NatWest provided material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organization by maintaining bank accounts and transferring funds for Interpal. The district court granted NatWest's motion for summary judgment. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether NatWest possessed the requisite scienter. The statute's requirement is less exacting, and requires only a showing that NatWest had knowledge that, or exhibited deliberate indifference to whether, Interpal provided material support to a terrorist organization, irrespective of whether Interpal's support aided terrorist activities of the terrorist organization. Because Hamas is an organization designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), plaintiffs can fulfill their burden by demonstrating either that NatWest had actual knowledge that Interpal provided material support to Hamas, or that NatWest exhibited deliberate indifference to whether Interpal provided material support. View "Weiss v. Nat'l Westminster Bank" on Justia Law