Justia International Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant, a Guantanamo detainee, appealed from a judgment of the district court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, appellant argued that the district court erred in not affording him protection due "medical personnel" under the First Geneva Convention. Because appellant had not established that he was "medical personnel" as defined by the Geneva Conventions, and because all other issues have been determined in the previous proceedings, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus.View "Al-Warafi v. Obama" on Justia Law

Sikhism is an Indian religion. Most Sikhs live in the Indian state of Punjab. The state’s highest official is Badal. SFJ, a U.S.‐based human rights group, accuses Badal of overseeing police and others implicated in killings and torture in Punjab, in violation of international law and the Torture Victim Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. 1350. SFJ filed a class action suit in Milwaukee, based on the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1350, which confers jurisdiction over “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” The district court dismissed on the ground that the defendant had not been served. SFJ had learned that Badal was coming to Milwaukee to attend a wedding and anticipated that he would attend a commemorative gathering because six people had been killed in an attack on a Wisconsin Sikh temple two days earlier. At that event, a special process server served some individual of the same general description (who later testified to receiving the papers and not understanding their significance), but Badal claimed that it was mistaken identity and that he attended a different memorial service. Badal’s security detail agreed that he had not been served. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Sikhs for Justice v. Badal" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, victims and victims' families and estates, filed suit against Iran and others alleging their liability for the attack on the Khobar Towers apartment complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Plaintiffs obtained a default judgment and attempted to collect. Plaintiffs had writs of attachment issued to Bank of America and Wells Fargo, seeking any asset held by the banks in which Iran had interest. The banks conceded that some accounts were potentially subject to attachment and these "uncontested accounts" were the subject of an interpleader action in the district court. The remaining "contested accounts" are the subject of this appeal. The court affirmed the order of the district court denying plaintiffs' motion for a turnover of the funds because plaintiffs could not attach the contested accounts under either section 201 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-297, 116 Stat. 2322, 2337, or 28 U.S.C. 1610(g) without an Iranian ownership interest in the accounts and because Iran lacked an ownership interest in the accounts. View "Heiser, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, the mother of twin girls, filed an application under the Hague Convention on International Aspects of Child Abduction, 19 I.L.M. 1501, after the girls' father, a resident of the United States, did not return them to Mexico. The district court held that the parties abandoned Mexico as the children's habitual state of residence when their parents decided they should, for an indefinite period, spend the majority of their time in the United States. The court concluded that the district court judge did not err in deciding that the parents shared a settled intention to abandon Mexico- they had immediate plans to avail the twins of government assistance in the United States as well as longer-term plans to educate the girls in the United States. The father could prevail by showing that he and the girls' mother shared a settled intention to abandon Mexico as the twins' sole habitual residence, that there was an actual change in geography, and that an appreciable period of time had passed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Valenzuela v. Michel" on Justia Law

Petitioner initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 3 of the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 51 Fed. Reg. 10, implemented by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 42 U.S.C. 11601 et seq., and sought return of his children to Canada from New York in order to allow the Canadian courts to determine which parent was to be awarded custody of the children. The court concluded that the district court properly determined under the Convention that the parties' last shared intention regarding the children's residence was that they live in Canada and for that reason the habitual residence of the children remained in Canada; there was no basis to conclude that the district court clearly erred in finding that the children have not become so acclimatized to life in New York that returning them to Canada would be harmful to them; and respondent failed to prove any affirmative defense. The court considered respondent's remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.View "Hofmann v. Sender" on Justia Law

Since the early 1990s, Chevron and its predecessor Texaco, Inc., have defended litigation concerning Texaco's operations in Ecuador and the environmental contamination it allegedly produced. This litigation started in the Southern District of New York but eventually found its way to Ecuadorian courts. In 2011, the court in Lago Agrio entered an $18.2 billion judgment against Chevron, which Chevron appealed. In this case, Chevron appealed the United States district court's order granting a motion to compel production of documents pursuant to subpoenas issued under 28 U.S.C. 1782. Chevron sought relief from that judgment pursuant to investment treaty arbitration under United Nations' rules. Finding no error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's order. View "The Republic of Ecuador, et al v. Bjorkman" on Justia Law

In 1985, Behringwerke filed a U.S. patent application directed to the use of DNA sequences (enhancers) identified in human cytomegalovirus. An enhancer, when introduced into a cell that produces a drug, can enable the cell to produce the drug at a much higher rate. In 1992, Behringwerke and Genentech entered into a licensing agreement related to enhancers that matured into the patents-in-suit; for fixed annual payments, Genentech could practice the patents for research purposes. Genentech was to pay a royalty on sales of commercially marketable goods incorporating a “Licensed Product.” The Agreement, governed by German law, required that disputes be settled by arbitration. Behringwerke sold its pharmaceutical business to Sanofi, but the Agreement and patent rights stayed with Hoechst; both are German entities. In 2008, Sanofi sued Genentech for infringement based on sales of the allegedly infringing drugs Rituxan and Avastin, which Genentech had not identified as licensed products. Hoechst demanded arbitration before a European arbitrator. The district court found no infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Arbitration continued. On remand, Genentech sought to enjoin Sanofi from continuing the foreign arbitration. The district court denied the motion, finding that Hoechst is a party to the arbitration, but not a party to the litigation and that an injunction would frustrate policies favoring enforcement of forum selection clauses, and would not be in the interest of international comity. The arbitrator determined that German substantive law, not U.S. patent law, would be used, that a drug could be a licensed article even though it did not contain the patented enhancers, if those enhancers were used in its manufacture, and that Genentech was liable for damages. The Federal Circuit affirmed that Genentech was not entitled to an injunction.View "Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, GMBH v. Genentech, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the denial of their motion to vacate the district court's order dismissing their claims against defendants on forum non conveniens grounds. This case arose out of an airplane crash in Venezuela of West Caribbean flight 708, while en route from Panama to Martinique. Plaintiffs' success in arguing to the Court of Cessation that a plaintiff's initial choice of forum under the Montreal Convention precluded other available forums from exercising jurisdiction over the same claims did not constitute "sufficient extraordinary" circumstances to warrant Rule 60(b)(6) relief. Plaintiffs could have raised the same argument initially in their opposition to forum non conveniens dismissal in the Southern District of Florida. Because they failed to do so, the court concluded that their attempt to raise the argument anew in their motion to vacate must also fail. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.View "Bapte, et al. v. West Caribbean Airways, et al." on Justia Law

Phillips was indicted in 2004 on charged that he had travelled to Thailand and knowingly engaged in illicit sexual conduct (18 U.S.C. 2423(f), 2246) with a minor male, not yet 16 years of age, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2423(c), the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act). Phillips pleaded guilty to the single count and was sentenced to 37 months in prison, followed by lifetime supervised release. Phillips was released from prison in 2007, violated several terms of his supervised release, and was sentenced to an additional 30 months. Released from his second incarceration in 2010, he unsuccessfully moved to vacate judgment under 28 U.S.C. 2255, arguing that PROTECT, which punishes “[e]ngaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places,” applied only to individuals who both traveled in foreign commerce and engaged in illicit sexual conduct after its enactment and that his conviction violated the Ex Post Facto clause. The district court found the motion time-barred and procedurally defaulted, noting that the illicit sexual conduct (not the travel) occurred after the enactment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the “actual innocence exception,” to the limitations period should be applied only in case of a fundamental miscarriage of justice. The exception cannot be so broadly defined as to be premised upon changes in statutory interpretation of the term “travels.” View "Phillips v. United States" on Justia Law

Bell appealed the vacatur of a default judgment as void in connection with the manufacture and marketing by Iran of a helicopter that resembled Bell's Jet Ranger 206 in appearance. The court concluded that Bell's interpretation of Rule 60(b)(4) was contrary to the court's precedent, as well as that of almost every other circuit court of appeals, all of which rejected a time limit that would bar Rule 60(b)(4) motions; because Iran never appeared in the district court proceeding resulting in the default judgment, the district court properly applied the traditional definition of voidness in granting Iran's Rule 60(b)(4) motion; and because Bell's evidence regarding the effect in the United States of Iran's commercial activities abroad was either too remote and attenuated to satisfy the direct effect requirement of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(2), or too speculative to be considered an effect at all, the district court did not err in ruling the commercial activity exception in the FSIA did not apply. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al." on Justia Law