Lago Agrio: Canadian Supreme Court’s Judgment To Be Delivered On Friday

On Friday at 9:45 a.m. EDT, the Supreme Court of Canada will deliver its judgment in Chevron Corp. v. Yaiguaje. It’s been a while, so as a reminder, this is the case in which the LAPs are seeking recognition of the Ecuadoran judgment in Canada.
(more…)

Continue ReadingLago Agrio: Canadian Supreme Court’s Judgment To Be Delivered On Friday

A Comparative Look At The New Hague Principles on Choice of Law & the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws: Second Post

Today I bring you the second post in our series comparing the new Hague Principles on Choice of Law and the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. I say “I,” but I mean “we.” Jonathan Levin, who interned this summer at the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference, is a co-author of these posts.
(more…)

Continue ReadingA Comparative Look At The New Hague Principles on Choice of Law & the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws: Second Post

Case of the Day: McAllister-Lewis v. Goodyear

Harley Davidson Ultra Classic
Harley Davidson Ultra Classic. Credit: Maxwell Hamilton. CC BY 2.0 license
The case of the day is McAllister-Lewis v. Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America, Ltd. (D.S.D. 2015). Judith McAllister-Lewis sued Goodyear Dunlop Tires North America and the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. for wrongful death after her husband died in a motorcycle accident on the highway when the tire of his Harley Davidson Ultra Classic had a “catastrophic deflation.” The tire was designed, manufactured, and sold in the US but built at a Goodyear and Dunlop plant in Montlucon, France. The plaintiff served a discovery on the defendants, both US entities, seeking information in the possession of GDTF, an indirect subsidiary of Goodyear in France. The defendants argued that answering the questions McAllister-Lewis had posed about “which GDTF employees were involved in the manufacturing and/or inspection process” might violate French privacy law.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: McAllister-Lewis v. Goodyear

Case of the Day: Ackelson v. Manley Toys

The case of the day is Ackelson v. Manley Toys Ltd. (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). The plaintiffs, Tammie Ackelson, Robin Drake, and Heather Miller, sued their employers, Manley Toy Direct LLC, Toy Network LLC, alleging violations of the Iowa Civil Rights Act. They later amended the complaint to add Manley Toys Ltd., and Toy Quest, Ltd., two related entities, both Hong Kong companies without agents for service of process in the United States.

The employees sought to make service on the Hong Kong companies by way of the Hong Kong central authority under the Hague Service Convention. The bailiff’s affidavit stated that the address where he served the documents “was operating (sic) by two companies named Manley Toys Limited and Toy Quest Limited, of which a female staff member, Ms. Lo Ming informed me that the aforesaid address was the registered office of the said party for service.” Looks good! But the two Hong companies moved to quash the service on the grounds that they had no employe or agent named Lo Ming (as far as the decision reveals, they did not claim that service had been made at the wrong address). The trial judge granted the motion, citing a similar decision from the US District Court for the Southern District of Iowa in another case involving the same defendants (but not, apparently, involving the same plaintiffs). I believe that the federal decision at issue was this decision in Rennenger v. Manley Toy Direct LLC (S.D. Iowa 2013), which also featured the mysterious Lo Ming. The employees then sought to make service on the Hong Kong companies’ US counsel under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.305(14). The trial judge agreed, and the Hong Kong companies took an interlocutory appeal.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Ackelson v. Manley Toys

Case of the Day: Certain Funds v. KPMG

The case of the day is Certain Funds, Accounts and/or Investment Vehicles Managed by Affiliates of Fortress Investment Group LLC v. KPMG, LLP (2d Cir. 2015). This is the appeal from Judge Buchwald’s interesting § 1782 decision from July 2014. Here was my summary of the case from the prior post:
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Certain Funds v. KPMG

Mexico Update: Supreme Court Refuses Recognition of US Judgment On Service of Process Grounds

In a recent post at Cartas Blogatorias, MarĂ­a Mercedes Albornoz has written about a recent amparo case in the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice in which the court refused to reverse a lower court’s decision refusing recognition of a US decision on the grounds that the defendant was not served personally with process.
(more…)

Continue ReadingMexico Update: Supreme Court Refuses Recognition of US Judgment On Service of Process Grounds

Case of the Day: Ledroit Law v. Kim

The case of the day is Ledroit Law v. Kim (Colo. Ct. App. 2015). Snell & Wilmer, an Arizona law firm with offices in Colorado, represented two Ontario companies in a civil case in the District of Colorado. At the same time, Ledroit Law, an Ontario law firm, represented one of the Canadian companies in related proceedings in Canada. Eugene Kim was a first-year associate at Snell & Wilmer at the time.

According to Snell & Wilmer and Kim, their clients instructed Snell & Wilmer to have Ledroit serve subpoenas in Ontario relating to their case in Colorado. But Ledroit sent Snell & Wilmer a bill for $15,000, claiming that Snell & Wilmer had retained Ledroit to provide legal services. Nonsense, said Snell & Wilmer—the two firms’ mutual client had instructed S&W to pass the task of serving the subpoenas on to Ledroit, so the client was liable for the bill.

Ledroit filed an action in the Ontario Superior Court against Snell & Wilmer and Kim. They served process by mail. The Ontario court “issued an assessment” against Snell & Wilmer and Kim in the amount of $15,829.99. Ledroit brought an action in Colorado for recognition and enforcement under the UEFJA.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Ledroit Law v. Kim

Case of the Day: International School of Management v. Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs

The case of the day is International School of Management, Inc. v. Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs (D. Kan. 2015). ISM ran executive education programs that awarded the degree of master of business administration. One of the programs was in France. ISM claimed that its accrediting body, ACBS, wrongfully terminated its accreditation on the grounds that the ISM entity that ran the program, ISMA, lacked the power to award higher degrees in France. ISM obtained a temporary restraining order requiring ACBS to accredit the French program and to indicate on its website that the program was accredited.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: International School of Management v. Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs

Lago Agrio: One Last Post On The DC Circuit Decision

A final update on the recent DC Circuit decision: the Donziger camp has confirmed to me that the Ecuadoran court order, mentioned in my second post on the case, is still in effect. Thus Ecuadoran law apparently requires the Ecuadoran government to pay the award to the Lago Agrio plaintiffs rather than to Chevron. However, the Donziger folks also tell me that no money can be paid under Ecuadoran law until the National Assembly takes certain steps. (This is sensible and familiar, as US law requires an appropriation before money can be spent from the treasury). I am guessing there will be quite a long delay (and maybe a petition for a rehearing en banc or a petition to the Supreme Court, as suggested in a recent statement from the Ecuadoran attorney general) while the Ecuadoran government figures out what it wants to do, because it is in a pickle.
(more…)

Continue ReadingLago Agrio: One Last Post On The DC Circuit Decision