Case of the Day: Folex Golf v. O-TA Precision Industries

The case of the day is Folex Golf Industries, Inc. v. O-TA Precision Industries Co. (9th Cir. 2015). Folex broght an action against O-TA in the Cenral District of California. O-TA argued that a Chinese default judgment against Folex, in an action against Folex brought by the Luoyang Ship Material Research Institute, would have collateral estoppel effect in California and would bar Folex’s California action. The district court agreed, recognized the Chinese judgment, and granted O-TA summary judgment. Folex appealed.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Folex Golf v. O-TA Precision Industries

Ghostwriting the Lago Agrio Judgment: The New Forensic Evidence

The indefatigable Doug Cassel is back with a pro-Chevron look at Ecuador’s forensic evidence regarding the judgment ghostwriting allegation in the Lago Agrio case. It’s fair to say the evidence is equivocal—both sides have a case to make. Here is Ecuador’s new brief addressing Chevron’s arguments: I hope to have an Ecuador advocate give Letters Blogatory readers a post about Ecuador’s position soon. My basic perspective is this: perhaps the evidence that seems to suggest that Judge Zambrano actually wrote the judgment can be challenged; but the fact that there is such evidence gives me reason to think that he did write the judgment. Otherwise, we have to think that Judge Zambrano created false evidence at the time of the judgment to make it appear that he wrote the judgment. How can that be if, as Chevron suggests, Judge Zambrano is a chucklehead? I don’t believe he could have been that devious. I am also influenced by the presumption of regularity, which I do not think we can discard in this case without making the argument profoundly circular. And as long-time readers know, I found Judge Guerra’s testimony deeply unconvincing.
(more…)

Continue ReadingGhostwriting the Lago Agrio Judgment: The New Forensic Evidence

Lago Agrio: The Egg Has Landed

I titled my last post on the dust-up between MCSquared and Sharon Stone “Lago Agrio: Someone’s Going To Have Egg On His Face.” The gist was that Stone gave notice that she intended to seek dismissal of MCSquared’s suit against her on the grounds that the relevant contract contained an agreement to arbitrate. MCSquared claimed that there was no contract with an arbitration agreement. This is one of those questions that has a right answer and a wrong answer, so the point was that someone—Stone’s lawyer or MCSquared’s lawyer—was going to have some egg on his face.
(more…)

Continue ReadingLago Agrio: The Egg Has Landed

Case of the Day: Soft Line S.p.A. v. Italian Homes, LLC

The case of the day is Soft Lines S.p.A. v. Italian Homes, LLC (N.C. Super. Ct. 2015). Soft Line Sued Angelo Calculli, an Italian national, and Italian Homes, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company, among others. Mr. Calculli was manager of Italian Homes. Like FRCP 4(f)(3), the North Carolina rules of civil procedure permit service by alternate means on motion. Soft Lines sought leave to serve Calculli by service on Italian Homes.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Soft Line S.p.A. v. Italian Homes, LLC

Case of the Day: AngioDynamics v. Biolitec

Wolfgang Neuberger
The contemnor
The case of the day is AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec AG (1st Cir. 2015). Actually, there are two cases of the day. In one, the First Circuit affirmed the default judgment against my favorite contemnor, Wolfgang Neuberger, and others, as a sanction for failing to participate in discovery. I’m not going to cover that one. In the second case, the court took up the issue of the contempt sanctions that I dealt with in my prior post.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: AngioDynamics v. Biolitec

Case of the Day: CTI Systems v. Herr Industrial

The case of the day is CTI Systems, SA v. Herr Industrial, Inc. (E.D. Pa. 2015). CTI, a Luxembourg company, contracted with Herr, a Pennsylvania corporation, for supplies and labor in connection with a “painting installation” in Kansas. The contract amount was $5.2 million, and the contract had Luxembourg choice of law and choice of forum clauses. According to the allegations in the complaint, Herr failed to complete the work required by the contract, and CTI overpaid Herr.

In 2014, CTI sued Herr in the District Court of Luxembourg, seeking to recover the alleged overpayment. Herr was served with process but did not appear. The Luxembourg court entered a default judgment for nearly $400,000. CTI then sued in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking recognition and enforcement of the judgment.

In between the date of the Luxembourg judgment and the date when CTI sued on the judgment, Herr sued CTI in the District of Kansas, alleging that it was still owed money under the contract. The suit alleged a violation of the Kansas Fairness in Private Construction Contracts Act (the KFPCCA), which requires all payment disputes concerning Kansas construction contracts to be brought in Kansas courts. Herr served process on CTI before CTI filed its suit for recognition and enforcement.

The issue before the Pennsylvania court was whether to dismiss CTI’s claim on the grounds that the Kansas suit was the first-filed suit.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: CTI Systems v. Herr Industrial

Case of the Day: NYKCool v. Pacific International Services

The case of the day is NYKCool A.B. v. Pacific International Services, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2015). NYKCool had a arbitration award for $8.7 million against Pacific Fruit Inc. and Kelso Enterprises. More than $6 million of the award was unsatisfied. It brought an action to pierce the corporate veil against Álvaro Fernando Noboa Pontón, the companies’ principal, who was an Ecuadoran national. NYKCool’s first attempt to serve process on Noboa—by email to an email address listed on the website for Noboa’s charitable foundation, Cruzada Nueva Humanidad—was quashed. But the judge authorized NYKCool to serve process by email to the lawyers who appeared on Noboa’s behalf in connection with the motion to quash.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: NYKCool v. Pacific International Services