Tag Archives: Mexico

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: Grupo Mexico v. SAS Asset Recovery

The case of the day is Grupo Mexico SAB de CV v. SAS Asset Recovery, Ltd. (5th Cir. 2016). This was a § 1782 case with an unusual twist. Grupo Mexico was involved in litigation in Mexico and sought discovery from SAS, which had offices in Dallas. After the district court granted the ex parte application (which included, as a necessary finding, that SAS was “found” in the Northern District of Texas), SAS evaded service of process in Dallas, leading Grupo Mexico ultimately to serve the subpoena on its registered agent in the Cayman Islands, via the Hague Service Convention. Grupo Mexico then moved to quash, arguing that the service was improper because it failed to comply with Cayman law, and also that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. The judge denied the motion, in part on the grounds that SAS had waived objections to service and the jurisdiction by failing to object timely to the subpoena. SAS appealed.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Grupo Mexico v. SAS Asset Recovery

Case of the Day: Grupo Famsa v. District Court

The case of the day is Grupo Famsa, S.A. de C.V. v. Eight Judicial District Court (Nev. 2016). B.E. Uno LLC was the owner of a shopping center in Las Vegas. Famsa, Inc. entered into a lease with Uno for commercial retail space. Grupo Fama guaranteed Famsa’s obligations under the lease. Uno sued Famsa and Grupo Famsa, alleging that Famsa had breached the lease. Uno served process on Grupo Fama in Mexico via the Mexican central authority. It’s not clear from the opinion how Uno requested the central authority to effect service, but I will assume that the request was for service in accordance with Mexican law rather than by a special method or by remise simple. The central authority served the documents on a person who, according to the Article 6 certificate, was “an employee in [Grupo’s] legal department.” Grupo Famsa moved to quash the service, asserting that the employee was in fact just a hostess who greeted people who came into its store. The trial court denied the motion to quash, and Grupo Famsa sought review.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Grupo Famsa v. District Court