Justia International Law Opinion Summaries

Lucas Alzu and Amy Nichole Huff met in Colombia in 2018 and began a romantic relationship that led to Huff becoming pregnant. Both led highly nomadic lives, moving frequently and attending international gatherings. In July 2019, due to expiring Colombian visas, they decided to relocate to Argentina, where Alzu’s family lived, for the birth of their child. Huff moved to Argentina when six months pregnant, but soon left Alzu’s family home because of physical assault and lived independently before Alzu joined her again. Their child was born in March 2020, and the COVID-19 pandemic shortly thereafter restricted travel. Following a breakdown in their relationship in 2021, Huff was granted an order of protection and, after travel restrictions were lifted, obtained permission from an Argentinian court to travel with the child. Instead of returning, Huff remained in the United States and began working full-time.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri bifurcated proceedings to first determine the child’s habitual residence under the Hague Convention and International Child Abduction Remedies Act. After a two-day evidentiary hearing, the district court found that Alzu had not established Argentina as the child’s habitual residence and dismissed his petition for return of the child.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s determination for clear error, applying the totality-of-the-circumstances standard as required by Supreme Court precedent. The appellate court found that the district court properly weighed factors such as parental intentions, immigration status, the child’s age, residency, family relationships, and pandemic-related restrictions. The Eighth Circuit held that Alzu had not met his burden to show Argentina was the child’s habitual residence and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Alzu v. Huff" on Justia Law

Torres are the parents of M. and G. who were born and resided in Peru until Torres removed them to the United States. Custodio seeks return of the children to Peru under the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention), Oct. 25, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11,670, 1343 U.N.T.S. 89, and its implementing statute, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 22 U.S.C. 9001–11. The district court denied Custodio's petition. Because M. turned 16 during the pendency of these proceedings, the court concluded that the Hague Convention no longer applies to him and dismissed as moot the appeal as to M. The court also concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that G.’s statements constituted an objection within the meaning of the mature child defense. Finally, the court concluded that the district court’s decision to respect 15-year-old G.’s opposition to returning to Peru and desire to remain in the United States was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment as to G. View "Custodio v. Torres Samillan" on Justia Law

Andover appealed the district court's denial of its 28 U.S.C. 1782 petition for discovery to be used in a patent-infringement suit in Germany. The district court considered Andover’s petition in light of the considerations identified by the Supreme Court and concluded that three considerations weighed against an order of production: (1) 3M is a party to the parallel German infringement suit and the German court had said it would grant Andover’s discovery request if necessary to resolve the case; (2) the “highly sensitive nature of the requested discovery, and the lack of certainty that its confidentiality can be maintained," and (3) Andover’s apparent attempt to avoid or preempt an unfavorable decision on discovery by the German court. In this case, the German court is in a position to order the requested discovery if the information is needed, and the German court is best positioned to assess whether any disclosure can be accomplished without jeopardizing the sensitive trade secrets involved. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Andover's petition. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Andover Healthcare, Inc. v. 3M Company" on Justia Law

Andover appealed the district court's denial of its 28 U.S.C. 1782 petition for discovery to be used in a patent-infringement suit in Germany. The district court considered Andover’s petition in light of the considerations identified by the Supreme Court and concluded that three considerations weighed against an order of production: (1) 3M is a party to the parallel German infringement suit and the German court had said it would grant Andover’s discovery request if necessary to resolve the case; (2) the “highly sensitive nature of the requested discovery, and the lack of certainty that its confidentiality can be maintained," and (3) Andover’s apparent attempt to avoid or preempt an unfavorable decision on discovery by the German court. In this case, the German court is in a position to order the requested discovery if the information is needed, and the German court is best positioned to assess whether any disclosure can be accomplished without jeopardizing the sensitive trade secrets involved. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Andover's petition. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Andover Healthcare, Inc. v. 3M Company" on Justia Law