Archives

Salcido-Romo v. Southern Copper Corp.

Workers cleaning up a spill in Sonora, Mexico
Cleaning up the Sonora y Bacanuchi Rivers.
Credit: Cuartoscuro

The case is Salcido-Romo v. Southern Copper Corp. (D. Ariz. 2016). Alberto Salcido-Romo and others were residents of a rural community in Sonora, Mexico. An indirect subsidiary of Southern Copper Corp. operated a mine near their community. In 2014, 10 million gallons of toxic mining waste flowed into a local river, affecting Salcido-Romo and the others. They brought various amparo actions in the Mexican courts against governmental defendants and against the indirect subsidiary that operated the mine. They also planned to bring environmental tort lawsuits against the mine operator and its parent, a Southern Copper Corp. subsidiary. Salcido-Romo sought leave to take discovery under § 1782 for use in the Mexican actions.
Continue reading Salcido-Romo v. Southern Copper Corp.

Case of the Day: BBK Tobacco & Foods v. Juicy eJuice

The case of the day is BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Juicy eJuice (D. Ariz. 2014). The plaintiff, which sold the liquid used to create vapor in electronic cigarettes, owned registered trademarks including JUICY JAYS and JUICY DROPS. It sued 1673030 Alberta, Inc., which, it alleged, sold electronic “smoking devices” and the liquids under the mark JUICY ESTICK, for trademark infringement.
Continue reading Case of the Day: BBK Tobacco & Foods v. Juicy eJuice

Case of the Day: Acushnet Co. v. Thiede

The case of the day is Acushnet Co. v. Thiede (D. Ariz. 2013). Acushnet sought leave to serve process on Dualwin Sporting Goods Co. via email in China. The judge granted the motion. Much of the short decision is taken up with citations to cases approving service by email, but lest anyone get the wrong idea, the true basis for the decision was the fact that Acushnet’s investigation had revealed that Dualwin had “falsified its physical address data.” When a defendant’s address is unknown, the Hague Service Convention simply has no application (see Art. 1). So the case is rightly decided, but as with all cases approving service by email in Hague Service Convention countries that have objected to service by postal channels, use caution before citing!