Read more about the article Case of the Day: Ganpat v. Eastern Pacific Shipping
Happy Patriot's Day! Letters Blogatory wishes all of the runners in today's marathon good luck.

Case of the Day: Ganpat v. Eastern Pacific Shipping

Happy Patriot's Day! Letters Blogatory wishes all of the runners in today's marathon good luck. The case of the day is Ganpat v. Eastern Pacific Shipping Pte. Ltd. (E.D. La.…

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Ganpat v. Eastern Pacific Shipping

Case of the Day: Jam v. International Finance Corp.

The case of the day is Jam v. International Finance Corp. (S. Ct. 2019). I wrote about the lower court decision back in June 2017. The claim was that the IFC, an international organization headquartered in Washington, had made loans to an Indian power company for construction of a coal-fired power plant in Gujarat, but that it had negligently failed to supervise the project. Local farmers and fishermen, and a local village, sued IFC in Washington on common law tort theories. The IFC moved to dismiss on the grounds that it was immune from suit under the International Organizations Immunities Act. The District Court and the D.C. Circuit held that IFC was indeed immune from suit, and the plaintiffs sought review in the Supreme Court. (more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Jam v. International Finance Corp.

Case of the Day: Patrick’s Restaurant v. Singh

The White Whale

The case of the day is Patrick’s Restaurant, LLC v. Singh (D. Minn. 2019). The case is in the genre of Hague Service Convention cases that I love to hate—cases following the lead of Gurung v. Malhotra, my white whale of international judicial assistance. (more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Patrick’s Restaurant v. Singh

Case of the Day: Patrick’s Restaurant v. Singh

The case of the day is Patrick’s Restaurant LLC v. Singh (D. Minn. 2018). Patrick’s sued Sujit Kumar Singh for breach of contract, on account of an alleged failure to make a promised capital contribution to the business in return for a membership interest. Singh resided in Mumbai. Singh was represented by US counsel and was on notice of the lawsuit, but he refused to waive service. Patrick’s sent a request for service to the Indian central authority, but seven months later, service had not been effected. Patrick’s moved for leave to serve by alternate means under FRCP 4(f)(3), namely, by email. (more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Patrick’s Restaurant v. Singh

Case of the Day: Hardy Exploration v. India

The case of the day is Hardy Exploration & Production (India), Inc. v. Government of India (D.D.C. 2018). It’s a rare example of a US court refusing to confirm an international arbitral award on the grounds that it violates US public policy.

Hardy had a contract with the Indian government to search for and extract hydrocarbons in the waters off India’s southeastern coast. If it found oil, it would have two years under the contract to determine if the find was commercially viable; but if it found gas, it would have five years. Hardy found hydrocarbons and claimed it had five years to make its determination, but the Indian government disagreed, claiming that Hardy only had two years. When two years had passed, the government declared that Hardy’s rights had expired. Hardy was never allowed back into the area. It demanded arbitration. The tribunal, seated in Kuala Lumpur, issued an award in Hardy’s favor requiring specific performance of the contract (i.e., requiring India to allow Hardy back into the site to continue its activities) and awarding interest.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Hardy Exploration v. India

Case of the Day: Chukkapalli v. Mandava

The case of the day is Chukapalli v. Mandava (Tex. Ct. App. 2017). The case was a divorce case. The couple had resided in India, but the wife moved to Texas and then filed a divorce petition there. The wife’s counsel sought to serve the husband by personal delivery in India via a process server apparently appointed by an Indian court, but the husband refused to accept the papers. The wife also served process by publication in Texas, which (I will assume) was permissible under Texas law. On this basis, when the husband did not appear, the Texas court granted the wife a divorce. The husband then moved for a new trial on the grounds that he had not been properly served with process. The trial court denied the motion, and the husband appealed.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Chukkapalli v. Mandava