Justia International Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, Chapour Bakhtiar's family members, asserted that Iran was responsible for Bakhtiar's murder and filed suit in U.S. District Court against Iran and an Iranian government agency. Plaintiffs brought claims under California tort law. Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. 1604, foreign nations were generally immune from suit in U.S. courts, but plaintiffs were able to maintain their case under the Act's exception for state-sponsored terrorism under section 1605(a)(7). At issue on appeal was whether plaintiffs could obtain punitive damages in their state-law tort suit against Iran without complying with the congressionally specified procedures for seeking punitive damages against a foreign nation. The court concluded that, for plaintiffs with suits pending against foreign nations as of January 28, 2008, Congress provided three options for obtaining the benefits of section 1605A and seeking punitive damages: a motion to convert the action, a refiling of the action or the filing of a related action. Because plaintiffs did not pursue any of these statutorily provided options, plaintiffs could not obtain punitive damages from Iran. The court considered all of plaintiffs' arguments and found them without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bakhtiar, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al." on Justia Law

The parents of a National Guardsman killed in an electrocution accident in Iraq brought suit against a civilian contractor who they claimed was responsible. Plaintiffs argued that Iraqi law governed the limitations period within which the suit needed to be brought but the district court held both that Iraqi law was not sufficiently proven and that the claims were barred by Louisiana's one-year prescriptive period. The court reversed and remanded, determining that Iraqi law was sufficiently proven. By operation of Louisiana Civil Code Article 3549, the Iraqi three-year prescription period applied. Based on what had been introduced, that period did not expire prior to suit and CPA Order 17 did not prevent this suit. Whether parents were proper parties, and any other issues beyond what the court had identified, were for further reconsideration on remand. View "McGee, et al. v. Arkel Int'l, L.L.C., et al." on Justia Law

After being extradited from Columbia, petitioner was convicted in federal court for his part in a drug conspiracy. He twice sought relief under 28 U.S.C. 2255, without success. He then sought relief under 28 U.S.C. 2241 for alleged violations of the extradition treaty. The district court denied relief, deeming the petition an attempt to circumvent the limits on section 2255. The First Circuit affirmed. Relief under section 2255 does cover violations of treaties and petitioner cannot circumvent the limits on multiple section 2255 petitions by resorting to section 2241 to assert a treaty claim that could as easily have been advanced in his original section 2255 petition. View "Cuevas v. Grondolsky" on Justia Law

Following about 30 years of oil extraction in the Ecuadorian Amazon, Ecuadorians brought a variety of claims against the company and obtained judgment in Ecuador. Chevron, a potential judgment-debtor, brought action under New York’s Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act, N.Y. C.P.L.R. 5301-5309, which allows judgment-creditors to enforce foreign judgments in New York courts, seeking a global anti-enforcement injunction against the Ecuadorians and their attorney to prohibit attempts to enforce the allegedly-fraudulent judgment entered by the Ecuadorian court. The district court granted the injunction. The Second Circuit reversed, vacating the injunction. The Recognition Act does not grant putative judgment-debtors a cause of action to challenge foreign judgments before enforcement of those judgments is sought. Judgment-debtors can challenge a foreign judgment’s validity under the Act only defensively, in response to an attempted enforcement.View "Chevron Corp. v. Donziger" on Justia Law

The Republic of Argentina appealed the denial of its motion to vacate an arbitral award on the principal ground that the arbitral panel exceeded its authority by ignoring the terms of the parties' agreement. The court held that where, as here, the result of the arbitral award was to ignore the terms of the Bilateral Investment Treaty - between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Argentina - and shifted the risk that the Argentine courts might not resolve BG Group's claim within eighteen months pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Treaty, the arbitral panel rendered a decision wholly based on outside legal sources and without regard to the contracting parties' agreement establishing a precondition to arbitration. Accordingly, the court reversed the orders denying the motion to vacate and granting the cross-motion to confirm, and vacated the Final Award. View "Republic of Argentina v. BG Group PLC" on Justia Law

This case involved a petition to confirm and enforce a foreign arbitration award against the Government of Belize pursuant to section 207 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 207. The facts underlying the issuance of the challenged stay order involved a telecommunication agreement with the government of Belize. Plaintiff appealed an order staying the proceeding pending the outcome of related litigation in Belize. The court concluded that the stay order as issued exceeded the proper exercise of authority of the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Belize Social Dev. Ltd. v. Government of Belize" on Justia Law

Defendant, a Russian citizen, attended graduate school and owns real property, vehicles, and bank accounts in Ohio. He spends some time in Ohio each year, ranging from 40 days in 2007 to a total of 17 days in 2008–2009. He visits under a tourist visa and does not have an Ohio driver's license. After going to Russia to take part in a business venture with defendant, plaintiff filed suit in Ohio. The contract had no connection to the state. The trial court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, noting that defendant was not served with process in a manner that automatically confers personal jurisdiction. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that notions of fair play and substantial justice weigh against jurisdiction in Ohio. The court quoted a Russian proverb, “If you’re afraid of wolves, don’t go into the forest” that could be read, “If you’re afraid of the Russian legal system, don't do business in Russia.” View "Conn v. Zakharov" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a contract entered into by Iraq's Ministry of Defense (IMOD) and Wye Oak for the refurbishment and disposal of Iraqi military equipment. At issue was whether, for purposes of analyzing subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1602-11, a foreign state and its armed forces were separate legal persons. The court concluded that, for jurisdictional purposes, they were not. Therefore, the court held that Wye Oak's claim against Iraq alleging breach of contract entered into by IMOD fell within the FSIA's commercial activities exception. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of Iraq's motion to dismiss Wye Oak's claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Wye Oak Technology, Inc. v. Republic of Iraq" on Justia Law

Nortel employed about 24,000 people worldwide when it filed Chapter 11 petitions. Its affiliates entered insolvency proceedings in Canada and the U.K. The Bankruptcy Court recognized the foreign proceedings as triggering the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. 362(a). Nortel entities from several countries entered into an Interim Funding and Settlement Agreement, approved by the Bankruptcy Court, providing for cooperation in sales of business units and that proceeds of any sale will be held in escrow. Claims filed in the U.S. asserted that U.S. debtors might be required to provide financial support for U.K. pension obligations under the U.K. Pensions Act 2004. The claims were contingent and unliquidated, based on the outcome of the U.K. proceedings. U.S. debtors sought to enforce the stay, to prevent participation in U.K. proceedings concerning their liability. The court granted the motion, holding that the police power exception to the automatic stay did not apply because neither the Trustee nor the U.K. agency is a governmental unit under 11 U.S.C. 101(27) and that U.K. proceedings do not pass the public policy or pecuniary purpose tests because the focus is a benefit for a private party, the Trustee. Canadian courts reached the same conclusion. The district court affirmed the stay. In U.K. proceedings, the debtors were ordered to secure financial support for the plan. The Third Circuit affirmed the stay.View "In Re: Nortel Network" on Justia Law

Respondent Alena Berridge relocated to Denver, Colorado from the Czech Republic with her two children. Subsequently, Petitioner Max Joseph Lesler, Respondent’s ex-husband and father of the children, filed a petition seeking return of the children to the Czech Republic pursuant to the Hague Convention and ICARA. In this appeal, the issue before the Tenth Circuit was whether the Court could grant any meaningful relief when the district court granted a petition for the return of children based not on a finding of wrongful removal, but instead on the parents' stipulation that the children would return to the country of habitual residence for a custody hearing. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit held this action was moot, resting on the fact that the district court made no finding of wrongful removal, and not on the basis of the children's then-current location. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the district court's opinion was vacated. The case was remanded for dismissal due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Leser v. Berridge" on Justia Law