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…)
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…)
(more…)
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…)
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…)
In a recent post at Cartas Blogatorias, MarÃa 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…)
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…)
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…)
Readers, I have migrated Letters Blogatory to its new server. I hope this was seamless and invisible to you, but if you experience any problems please let me know!
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…)
We answer all email and requests as they come in. If you have an urgent matter or would like to place an order please click the link below to give us a call.
The Folkman LLC website is for informational purposes only and does not provide legal advice. Using the site or communicating with us through it does not form an attorney/client relationship and is to subject to rules governing attorney/client privilege or confidentiality.
Please subscribe to our “Clients and Colleagues” newsletter, which we typically send approximately quarterly, and to Letters Blogatory, the award-winning blog on international judicial assistance, which is updated more regularly.
