The case of the day is Zaft v. Golan (N.D. Fla. 2013). It’s an older case that just came across my screen and is worth a mention. Gidon Zaft, an American, and Yair Golan, an Israeli, were parties to a partnership agreement under which Zaft owned 70% of Royal Moroccan Inc., a Floridan corporation, and Golan owned 30%. The agreement had Florida choice of law and choice of forum agreements, and it provided:
All notices required or permitted under the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be
deemed to have been properly given and served when sent by overnight, Registered and/or Certified Mail, postage prepaid, returned receipt requested, properly addressed.
Zaft sued Golan on several business tort claims. According to the return of service, a process server personally served the documents on Golan in Israel, at the address specified for notices in the agreement. The court entered Golan’s default when Golan didn’t answer. Golan sought relief from the default on the grounds that he had not been properly served with process. Continue reading Case of the Day: Zaft v. Golan→
Readers, check out Eric Sherby’s new blog, Globalit. Eric’s an excellent Israeli lawyer, originally from New York, and I’ve had the pleasure to get to know him a little through our work together on an ABA newsletter. The name of the blog, Globalit, is a nice pun, though one that needs a little explanation in English. If you say the name “Global Lit,” it means, obviously, “Global Litigation,” but if you say, “Globaleet,“then it’s the Hebrew word for “globally.” I know there’s a rule that says a pun its no good if you have to explain it, but given that this is a bilingual pun, I think the rule does not apply, and anyway, as my own blog and Cartas Blogatorias attest, I like wordplay in the title of websites. Continue reading Welcome to Globalit!→
At Opinio Juris, Julian Ku wrote about an interesting new action filed in Washington, Schermerhorn v. State of Israel (D.D.C.). The case arises out of the 2010 Gaza flotilla, in which several ships carrying self-described activists sought to challenge the Israeli (and Egyptian) blockade of Gaza. It turns out one of the ships, the Challenger I, was a US-flagged vessel. Gotcha! Well, maybe, as we’ll see. The nationality of the Challenger I is the jurisdictional hook several of the amateur blockade runners are seeking to use to sue Israel in the US courts for torture, other war crimes, arbitrary arrest, false imprisonment, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conversion. Continue reading Case to Watch: Schermerhorn v. Israel→