Kvetch of the Day: the FSIA and the Clerks

Okay, here is my kvetch of the day. I have a new FSIA case in a district that does not hear many FSIA cases. Under the FSIA, a foreign sovereign has sixty days, rather than twenty-one days, to answer a complaint. The clerk issued the ordinary twenty-one day summons, which was expected. I spoke with a deputy clerk and asked for her office to issue a sixty-day summons, or to allow me to submit a form of a summons for her office to issue. FRCP 4(b) seems to say that that’s the right thing for me to do.
Continue reading Kvetch of the Day: the FSIA and the Clerks

Case of the Day: Livnat v. Palestinian Authority

Joseph's Tomb at Shechem
David Roberts, Joseph’s Tomb at Shechem

The case of the day is Livnat v. Palestinian Authority (D.C. Cir. 2017). In 2011, Ben-Yosef Livnat was killed, and Yitzhak and Natan Safra were wounded, in a terrorist attack at Joseph’s Tomb, a holy site in Nablus. The Livnat and Safra families sued the Palestinian Authority, alleging that the terrorists in the incident were the security guards the PA had hired to guard the site. The claims were under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2333, and for common-law torts. The PA moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion, and the plaintiffs appealed.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Livnat v. Palestinian Authority

Case of the Day: Cunningham v. Cunningham

I’m happy to welcome a new guest-poster and fellow blogger, Nathan Park of Kobre Kim, who brings us a short discussion of Cunningham v. Cunningham (M.D. Fla. 2017). Welcome, Nathan!


This case follows a proceeding in which plaintiff ex-wife sued the defendants ex-husband and his current wife, in order to secure return of the child between ex-wife and ex-husband from U.S. to Japan, back to ex-wife’s custody. The court previously ordered the child to be returned to the ex-wife pursuant to Hague Convention on Child Abduction. On the day the ex-wife was supposed to be on the flight back to Japan with a child, the defendants filed the motion to stay the order.

The court denied the stay motion, noting that the ex-wife and the child likely left the United States already. Further, the court found the stay motion to be an attempt to re-litigate the previous proceeding.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Cunningham v. Cunningham