The case of the day is Malleiro v. Mori (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015). Eleno Isleno was an Argentine national who died in Florida at the age of 79. She held property in both Argentina and the United States at the time of her death. About five years before her death, she made a will in New York that everyone agreed satisfied the necessary formalities for a will under Florida law. The devisees under the New York will were her nieces, other relatives, and friends. A few months later, she made a will in Argentina. As you would expect, the formalities of making a will are quite different in a common law jurisdiction than they are in a civil law jurisdiction. In New York, she signed the will in the presence of attesting witnesses. In Argentina, Iselno orally expressed her testamentary wishes to a notary, in the presence of witnesses, who wrote them in a document and read them to her. She then orally approved the document in the presence of witnesses, and the notary signed and stamped the document. Iselno, however, did not sign. The Argentine will, which was admitted to probate in Argentina, purported to revoke all prior wills. The beneficiaries were Iselno’s nephew and other relatives and friends. None of the devisees under the Argentine will were devisees under the New York will, and vice versa.
The devisees under the New York will and the devisees under the Argentine will filed competing petitions in the Florida probate court. The court admitted the Argentine will to probate, and the New York devisees appealed. Continue reading Case of the Day: Malleiro v. Mori→
The case of the day is Chevron Corp. v. Snaider (D. Colo. 2015). I haven’t written about a Lago Agrio-related case in a while. It’s good to be back! Chevron, after applying under § 1782, obtained leave to serve a subpoena on Andres Snaider. Snaider, an Ecuadoran national living in Connecticut, was the founder of Nextant, LLC, a consultancy, and he was a classmate of Steven Donziger and James Russell DeLeon at Harvard Law School in the 1980s. Snaider and Donziger had originally approached DeLeon, who controlled Torvia Ltd., seking an investment in a documentary about the environmental damage in the Amazon—presumably the film that became Crude. According to Chevron, DeLeon ultimately invested more than $3 million in the Lago Agrio litigation, and Snaider was alleged to be involved in structuring the investment and reviewing the Torvia funding agreement. Chevron brought a § 1782 application, seeking evidence from Snaider for use in its action in Gibraltar against DeLeon and Torvia as well as for use in the actions in Argentina and Brazil to enforce the Ecuadoran judgment. After the subpoena issued, Snaider moved to quash. Continue reading Case of the Day: Chevron v. Snaider→
In the latest twist in the Argentine debt saga, NML Capital has sought to enjoin Cesar Guido Forcieri, a former Argentine government official and World Bank director, from departing as planned from the United States. NML claims that he failed to comply with a subpoena and that immediate relief was necessary in light of his imminent and apparently permanent departure from the country.
The judge denied the motion without much comment (though he did call the proposed relief “draconian”). This piqued my interest because of the similarity of the relief sought to the writ of ne exeat.Ne exeat was an equitable writ directed to the sheriff commanding him to commit the defendant to prison until the prison gave security not to leave the jurisdiction without the court’s permission. You may say that’s old-fashioned nonsense, but check out, for example, Mass. R. Civ. P. 4.3(c):
An order of arrest may be entered upon motion with or without notice when the plaintiff has obtained a judgment or order requiring the performance of an act, the neglect or refusal to perform which would be punishable by the court as a contempt, and where the defendant is not a resident of the Commonwealth or is about to depart therefrom, by reason of which nonresidence or departure there is danger that such judgment or order will be rendered ineffectual. The motion shall be accompanied by an affidavit showing that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested. The court may fix such terms as are just, and shall in any event afford the defendant an opportunity to obtain his release by the giving of an appropriate bond. In this rule the words “plaintiff” and “defendant” mean respectively the party who has obtained the judgment or order and the person whose arrest is sought.
Note that while at common law the writ had to be directed to the defendant, the Massachusetts rule is broader, allowing an order of arrest of anyone against whom an order has entered if disobedience to the order could be punished as a contempt. Now, I can’t say I’ve ever seen this used in practice, though I have been tempted once or twice to try.
NML cites some cases for the proposition that the court has the power to enjoin Forcieri in this way. Now, it could be that such a remedy is available under applicable state law and thus arguably available to the federal court under FRCP 69. But this is problematic, since the Grupo Mexicano case—a case that I think was wrongly decided but that well expresses Justice Scalia’s philosophy of judging—teaches that the federal court’s equitable powers are no broader today than they were in 1789.
Under Grupo Mexicano, does the federal court have the power to issue an injunction in the nature of a ne exeat against someone other than the defendant? In light of the judge’s denial of NML’s motion, the court won’t reach that question, but it seems to me the answer is no.