Here is a page that brings together Letters Blogatory’s coverage of international judicial assistance at the Supreme Court.

Petitions for Certiorari Granted

  • OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs. Carol Sachs, a Californian, suffered a personal injury at a train station in Innsbruck, Austria. She was traveling using a Eurail pass she had bought online from a ticket seller in Massachusetts. OBB Personenverkehr is the Austrian rail operator. Sachs sued and invoked the commercial activity exception to foreign sovereign immunity under the FSIA. The two issues in the case are, first, whether the Ninth Circuit was wrong to determine that the ticket seller was the rail operator’s “agent,” for purposes of applying the commercial activity exception, using the common law of agency rather than asking whether the ticket seller was an “agency or instrumentality” of Austria as those terms are used in the definitions section of the FSIA; and second, whether Sachs’s tort claim was based upon the rail operator’s commercial activity in the United States.
  • Bank Markazi v. Peterson.

    Petitions for Certiorari Pending

    Cert. Watch!

    Older Decided Cases

    • Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital. The Court held that the FSIA does not forbid or limit discovery in aid of execution of a foreign-sovereign judgment debtor’s assets.
    • Chafin v. Chafin. The Court held that the return of a child to the country of his habitual residence under the Hague Child Abduction Convention does not moot an appeal from the decision ordering the child’s return. There had been a circuit split on this question, with the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits rejecting the mootness argument and the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits adopting it.
    • Lozano v. Alvarez. The time limit on raising, as a defense to a petition for the return of a child under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, the argument that the child is now settled in the United States cannot be equitably tolled.
    • BG Group v. Argentina. An arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to decide on arbitrability where, under the relevant investment treaty, a dispute did not become arbitrable until the investor had proceeded in the state’s own courts and there was a question about whether the right to demand arbitration had been triggered.
    • Daimler AG v. Bauman. DaimlerChrysler was not subject to general personal jurisdiction in California merely because its subsidiary, Mercedes Benz USA, was subject to general jurisdiction there and was its agent for service of process.