The case of the day is Ledroit Law v. Kim (Colo. Ct. App. 2015). Snell & Wilmer, an Arizona law firm with offices in Colorado, represented two Ontario companies in a civil case in the District of Colorado. At the same time, Ledroit Law, an Ontario law firm, represented one of the Canadian companies in related proceedings in Canada. Eugene Kim was a first-year associate at Snell & Wilmer at the time.
According to Snell & Wilmer and Kim, their clients instructed Snell & Wilmer to have Ledroit serve subpoenas in Ontario relating to their case in Colorado. But Ledroit sent Snell & Wilmer a bill for $15,000, claiming that Snell & Wilmer had retained Ledroit to provide legal services. Nonsense, said Snell & Wilmer—the two firms’ mutual client had instructed S&W to pass the task of serving the subpoenas on to Ledroit, so the client was liable for the bill.
Ledroit filed an action in the Ontario Superior Court against Snell & Wilmer and Kim. They served process by mail. The Ontario court “issued an assessment” against Snell & Wilmer and Kim in the amount of $15,829.99. Ledroit brought an action in Colorado for recognition and enforcement under the UEFJA.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Ledroit Law v. Kim
In a somewhat surprising development, Justice MacPherson, who wrote the Ontario Court of Appeals’s decision in Yaiguaje v. Chevron, has stayed that decision pending the outcome of Chevron’s application to the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision was surprising—to me, at least, though I welcome the view of Canadian lawyers—because of the tenuousness of Chevron’s claim of irreparable harm: Chevron pointed to the risk that if it won, it might be unable to recover the costs of the proceedings form the Lago Agrio plaintiffs. These costs are, of course, minuscule compared to what is at stake in the case, but Justice MacPherson felt it was enough to justify a stay.
Here is a copy of the papers Chevron filed with the Supreme Court, and here are the papers that Chevron’s Canadian subsidiary filed.
The case of the day is In re Application of Ontario Principals’ Council (N.D. Cal. 2013). The Ontario Principals’ Council, Gordana Stefulic, Vivian Mavrou, and Varla Abrams were plaintiffs in a Canadian defamation action. The allegation was that anonymous or pseudonymous internet users had posted defamatory comments on websites such as Topix. The plaintiffs sought leave to serve a subpoena on Topix in order to identify the supposed tortfeasors.
The magistrate judge conducted an Intel analysis. The factors favored the subpoena: Topix was not a party to the Canadian case; the evidence would assist the Canadian court in assessing the claims; there was no evidence of an attempt to circumvent Canadian proof-gathering mechanisms. The judge therefore granted the application.
The plaintiffs also sought an injunction enjoining Topix from notify its users of the subpoena. The judge correctly rejected this request for a prior restraint of speech without much analysis. That’s one I haven’t seen before.