Thoughts On Impeachment

I called for Donald Trump’s impeachment and removal from office more than a year ago and I haven’t written many political posts since then. Once you’ve said the President should be impeached, there’s not much room left! But last week’s news seems so consequential that I think another post is in order. I am not going to review the facts as we know them—plenty of others are doing that better than I could. Instead, I want to offer two thoughts about what comes next, after Trump. (more…)

Continue ReadingThoughts On Impeachment

Case of the Day: Abdul Latif Jameel Transportation v. FedEx

The case of the day is Abdul Latif Jameel Transportation Co. v. FedEx Corp. (6th Cir. 2019). The case is a big deal in the world of § 1782. One of the great open questions is whether a private international arbitral tribunal is a “tribunal” for purposes of the statute. There were some old cases that said “no,” but then came Intel, in which the Supreme Court adopted a functional test for deciding what is an is not a tribunal. People speculated that in light if Intel courts would begin to say that private arbitral tribunals were tribunals for purposes of the statute, but to date, that hasn’t happened at the appellate level. Today’s decision is the first decision of a circuit court, post-Intel that reaches what I think is the right result on this question. (more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Abdul Latif Jameel Transportation v. FedEx

Save The Date: HCCH a|Bridged

Peace Palace

Readers, the Hague Conference on Private International Law is hosting a conference on the use of IT in connection with the Hague Service Convention. The conference is the first in a planned series called “HCCH a|Bridged,” which are meant to be more informal than meetings of the Special Commission. The event will be held on December 11 at the Academy Building, on the grounds of the Peace Palace. I’ll be speaking on the first panel, titled “The Prism: The Tech Battle for e-Service.” It looks to be a useful and thought-provoking event! The HCCH is accepting registrations of interest here. Check it out!
(more…)

Continue ReadingSave The Date: HCCH a|Bridged

Paper of the Day: Contracting Around the Hague Service Convention

John Coyle, Robin Effron, and Maggie Gardner have published a short, interesting paper on contracting around the Hague Service Convention. The genesis of the paper is Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou SinoType Technology Company, Ltd., which I wrote about in October 2018. I am always pleased when a law professor’s take on the case is consistent with mine (that’s better than the alternative!), and Professors Coyle, Effron and Gardner agree with me that the case was rightly decided. (more…)

Continue ReadingPaper of the Day: Contracting Around the Hague Service Convention

Case of the Day: Mountain Crest v. Anheuser-Busch InBev

The case of the day is Mountain Crest SRL, LLC v. Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (7th Cir. 2019). Mountain Crest sued Anheuser-Busch and Molson Coors, claiming the two companies had conspired to keep Mountain Crest out of the business of exporting beer to Ontario by boycotting the LCBO, Ontario’s government-run liquor store, to force it to enter into agreement under which an entity controlled by Anheuser-Busch and Molson Coors was the only entity allowed to sell beer to the LCBO in packages of more than six bottles. The district court dismissed the case under the act of state doctrine, and Mountain Crest appealed. (more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Mountain Crest v. Anheuser-Busch InBev

Case of the Day: NOCO Co. v. Khaustov

The case of the day is NOCO Co. v. Khaustov (N.D. Ohio 2019). NOCO accused Yan Khaustov of trademark infringement because he was selling alleged knockoffs via Amazon. The question was whether the court should authorize NOCO to serve process on Khaustov, in Russia, via email. (more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: NOCO Co. v. Khaustov

Elephant Habeas Case: Connecticut Appellate Court Holds Elephants Are Not Persons

Mother and baby elephant
Credit: Casey Allen (CC0)

It will surprise no one except Steven Wise that in today’s case, Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. R.W. Commerford & Sons, Inc. (Conn. App. Ct. 2019), the court affirmed dismissal of a habeas corpus petition brought on behalf of three elephants in a zoo on jurisdictional grounds, as the elephants are not persons with standing to petition for writs of habeas corpus. I’ve written about the case twice before, at its inception and following the lower court’s decision denying the petition as frivolous. (more…)

Continue ReadingElephant Habeas Case: Connecticut Appellate Court Holds Elephants Are Not Persons

Observation of the Day: Prosecutorial Discretion At The Lowest and Highest Levels

Here in Boston we were reluctant hosts to a ridiculous straight pride parade, and the somewhat less ridiculous but surely inevitable counterprotests. As we have seen in several other cities, the counterprotesters scuffled with the police, and some were arrested for crimes such as disorderly conduct or resisting arrest. (more…)

Continue ReadingObservation of the Day: Prosecutorial Discretion At The Lowest and Highest Levels

Case of the Day: Vista Peak Ventures v. GiantPlus Technology

Rosie the Riveter
Letters Blogatory wishes its readers a happy Labor Day!

The case of the day is Vista Peak Ventures, LLC v. GiantPlus Technology Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex. 2019). The claim against GiantPlus, a Taiwanese company, was for patent infringement. Vista Peak asked the clerk to send the summons and complaint by registered mail, return receipt requested, to GiantPlus in Taipei. So far so good. A security guard received and signed for the documents and then gave them to the General Administrator of the company, who sent a written acknowledgment of receipt but returned the package to the sender—the clerk—because it “was not directed to a specific individual or department.” GiantPlus then moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process. (more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Vista Peak Ventures v. GiantPlus Technology