reading group: transnational litigation in united … · syllabus fall 2016 professor rhonda...

READING GROUP:TRANSNATIONAL LITIGATION IN UNITED STATES COURTS

SYLLABUS

Fall 2016

Professor Rhonda Wasserman T o m P o t t e r ( a d ministrative assistant)Areeda 132 Areeda [email protected] [email protected](617) 384-5979 (617) 496-5028

CourseDescription

This reading group will consider the unique challenges that arise whentransnational disputes are litigated in United States courts. Transnationaldisputes may involve litigants that are domiciled or located abroad; conductthat occurred abroad; necessary evidence that is stored abroad; or paralleljudicial proceedings that are filed in the courts of other nations. The readinggroup will consider the role of United States courts in resolving such disputes;the extent to which judicial resolution intrudes upon the prerogatives of theelected branches of government; the potential impact of transnational litigationon foreign relations; and the respective roles of state and federal courts in theadjudication of transnational disputes. Readings will include judicial opinions;statutes and procedural rules; treaties and other sources of international law;and commentary.

Room andMeeting Dates

This is a one-credit reading group, which will meet on the following sixTuesdays from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in WCC 5051:

September 13, 2016

September 20, 2016

September 27, 2016

October 18, 2016

October 25, 2016

November 1, 2016

1

Wasserman, Rhonda Transnational Litigation in United States Courts Fall 2016 reading group

mailto:[email protected]


Attendance andParticipation

Class work is essential to the educational program at Harvard Law School. Regular attendance at classes and participation in class work are expected ofall students and attendance is evaluated in light of the number of days that theclass meets. In the case of substantial delinquency in attendance, the LawSchool may, after written warning, involuntarily withdraw the student from thecourse. Students who believe they need to miss classes for an extended periodof time must speak with the Dean of Students who can assist with suchsituations and can help students comply with the Law School’s attendancepolicy and related academic policies.

If you will be absent from class, please notify my administrative assistant,Tom Potter, [email protected], before the class. If you miss classwithout having first notified Mr. Potter, please email him as soon aspossible after the missed class.

If you can attend class but are not prepared to participate, please notifyme directly. You may email me (more than 15 minutes before class) [email protected] or you may come up to me right beforeclass begins.

Students anticipating missing class for religious observance should consult theLaw School’s Class Recording Policy which is available here.

Office Hours I will hold office hours on Wednesdays from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. in Areeda 132. You are welcome to stop by at other times with questions or just to chat, butif you come at a time that is inconvenient for me, I’ll let you know and we canpick a mutually convenient time to meet. If you would prefer, you may e-mailor call me to schedule an appointment.

Canvas Site; ReadingMaterials;Questions toConsider;Suggested Book

I have created a course page on Canvas, which contains the syllabus, theassigned reading materials, and questions to consider as you complete eachweek’s readings. Many of the reading materials can be found in, or arereferred to in, GARY B. BORN & PETER B. RUTLEDGE, INTERNATIONALCIVIL

LITIGATION IN UNITED STATES COURTS (5th ed. 2011). I have edited the casesdifferently from the book’s authors and have included more of the originaltexts. The book contains the authors’ extensive notes and commentary as wellas a wealth of additional material that I have not assigned for this readinggroup. If you are particularly interested in the subject matter of this course,you may wish to consult the book, which I have placed on reserve in thelibrary, or to purchase it for your personal library.

Be sure to read through the questions that accompany each week’sreadings and come to class having given them some thought.

2




http://hls.harvard.edu/dept/academics/handbook/xiii-other-rules/f-class-recordings/

DisabilitiesRequiringAccommodations

Harvard Law School is dedicated to facilitating equal access for students withdisabilities and to cultivating a campus culture that is sensitive and responsiveto the needs of students. To request an accommodation for a disability duringthe course, students are welcome to reach out to Accessibility Services in theDean of Students Office or at (617) 495-1880. You may also visit the officein WCC 3039. Additional information, including how to register foraccommodations, can be found at Accessibility.

Recording ofClasses

To ensure the free and open discussion of ideas, students may not recordclassroom discussion without the advance written permission of the instructor(which may be conditioned upon the student’s agreement to destroy therecording by a certain date). Any recording may be used solely for thestudent’s own pedagogical use. Recordings may not be posted to You Tube,Facebook, or any other site or distributed via email or otherwise.

Students who anticipate missing a class for religious observance may requestthat the Media Services Department record the class, pursuant to the HLSClass Recording Policy, which is available here.

Internet &Cell PhonePolicy

Laptop computers may be used during class only for viewing class materialsand taking notes. Internet and telephone use are not allowed during class. Please refrain from web-browsing, emailing, texting, Tweeting, updating yourFacebook status, etc.

3



http://hls.harvard.edu/dept/dos/accessibility/

http://hls.harvard.edu/dept/academics/handbook/xiii-other-rules/f-class-recordings/

TRANSNATIONAL LITIGATION IN UNITED STATES COURTSREADING ASSIGNMENTS

Fall 2016Prof. Rhonda Wasserman

I. Week 1: Tuesday, Sep. 13, 2016: Territorial Jurisdiction

A. Federal Rules

1. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)

B. Selections from the Restatement

1. Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States §§421-423 & comments e & f to § 421, and Reporter’s Note 7 to § 421 (1987)

C. Cases

1. Specific Jurisdiction

a. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Super. Ct., 480 U.S. 102 (1987)

b. J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011)

2. General Jurisdiction

a. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746 (2014)

3. Transient Jurisdiction

a. Martinez v. Aero Carribean, 764 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2014)

D. Commentary

1. Gary B. Born, Reflections on Judicial Jurisdiction in International Cases, 17 GA. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 1 (1987)

2. Adam N. Steinman, The Meaning of McIntyre, 18 SW. J. INT’L L. 417 (2012)

3. Linda J. Silberman, The End of Another Era: Reflections on Daimler and itsImplications for Judicial Jurisdiction in the United States, 19 LEWIS &CLARK L. REV. 675 (2015)

4


II. Week 2: Tuesday, Sep. 20, 2016: Subject Matter Jurisdiction

A. Statutes

1. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction)

2. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) & (c) (diversity and alienage jurisdiction)

3. 28 U.S.C. § 1333 (admiralty and maritime jurisdiction)

4. 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (alien tort statute)

B. Cases

1. Alienage Jurisdiction

a. Frett-Smith v. Vanterpool, 511 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 2008)

2. Jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Statute

a. Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980)

b. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004)

c. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013)

3. Federal Question Jurisdiction

4. Sequihua v. Texaco, Inc., 847 F. Supp. 61 (S.D. Tex. 1994)

C. Commentary

1. Kevin R.Johnson, Why Alienage Jurisdiction? Historical Foundations andModern Justifications for Federal Jurisdiction Over Disputes InvolvingNoncitizens, 21 YALE J. INT’L L. 1 (1996)

2. Anthony J. Colangelo & Christopher R. Knight, Post-Kiobel Procedure:Subject Matter Jurisdiction or Prescriptive Jurisdiction?, 19 UCLA J. INT’L

L. 49 (2015)

5


III. Week 3: Tuesday, Sept. 27, 2016: Foreign Sovereign Immunity

A. Statute: Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

1. 28 U.S.C. § 1330

2. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(4)

3. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d)

4. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1607

B. State Department Letter

1. Letter of Acting Legal Adviser to the State Department, Jack B. Tate, to theDepartment of Justice (May 19, 1952), 26 DEP’T OF STATE BULL. 984 (1952)

C. Selections from the Restatement

1. Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 201(1987)

2. Restatement (Second) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 66(1965)

D. Cases

1. Historical Origins of Foreign Sovereign Immunity Doctrine

a. The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116 (1812)

2. Retroactive Application of FSIA and Deference to the Executive

a. Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004)

(1) this case was the subject of a recent film, Woman in Gold(2015), starring Helen Mirren; here’s the trailer: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2404425

(2) here’s an image of the Klimt painting that was the subjectof the lawsuit:http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/04/01/woman-in-gold_custom-0d0243169ca8eef763686e144da1eda1ea27e7a9-s900-c85.jpg

6


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2404425

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/04/01/woman-in-gold_custom-0d0243169ca8eef763686e144da1eda1ea27e7a9-s900-c85.jpg



3. Entities that Qualify as Foreign States

a. Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (2003)

b. Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305 (2010)

c. Ungar v. Palestine Liberation Org., 402 F.3d 274 (1st Cir. 2005)

4. Commercial Activity Exception

a. Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607 (1992)

b. Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 (1993)

c. OBB Personenverkehr v. Sachs, 136 S. Ct. 390 (2015)

E. Commentary

1. Report of the ABA Working Group, Reforming the Foreign SovereignImmunities Act, 40 COLUM. J. TRANSNAT’L L. 489 (2002)

7


IV. Week 4: Tues., Oct. 18, 2016: Extraterritorial Reach of, and the Choice of, U.S. Law

A. Constitutional Provisions

1. U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, § 8, clauses 3, 10 & 11

2. U.S. Constitution, Art. 4, § 1

3. U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause

4. U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause

B. Selections from the Restatements

1. Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States §§ 402& 403 (1987)

C. Cases

1. Constitutional Limits on State Legislative Jurisdiction

a. Home Ins. Co. v. Dick, 281 U.S. 397 (1930)

b. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302 (1981)

c. Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003)

2. Constitutional Limits on Federal Legislative Jurisdiction

a. United States v. Davis, 905 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1990)

3. Presumption Against Extraterritoriality

a. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Arabian American OilCo., 499 U.S. 244 (1991)

b. Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010)

c. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013)

4. Effects Test

a. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Calif., 509 U.S. 764 (1993)

8


D. Commentary

1. Lea Brilmayer & Charles Norchi, Federal Extraterritoriality and FifthAmendment Due Process, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1217 (1992)

2. Hannah L. Buxbaum, Territory, Territoriality, and the Resolution ofJurisdictional Conflict, 57 Am. J. Comp. L. 631 (2009)

9


V. Week 5: Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2016: Discovery of Evidence Located Outside the UnitedStates

A. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

1. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), (c) & (f)

2. Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b) & 29

3. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a), (b), & (f)

4. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) & (c)

5. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) & (b)

6. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)-(d) & (g)

B. U.S. Statutes

1. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1781-1784

C. Selections from the Restatement


D. International Agreement

1. Hague Evidence Convention (1970) [pay particular attention to article 23]

E. Diplomatic Objections to Discovery in U.S. Courts

1. Diplomatic Note from the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairsto the Ambassador of the United States (Nov. 8, 1978)

F. Foreign Blocking Statute

1. French blocking statute, Penal Code Law No. 80–538 (July 16, 1980)

G. Cases

1. Direct Discovery of Material Located Outside the United States

a. First Nat’l City Bank of N.Y. v. Internal Revenue Service, 271 F.2d616 (2d Cir. 1959)

10


b. Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12926 (2dCir. July 14, 2016)

2. Resolving Conflicts with Foreign Law

a. Société Internationale pour Participations Industrielles etCommerciales v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 (1958)

3. Relationship Between the Hague Evidence Convention and the FederalRules

a. Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S.Dist. of Iowa, 482 U.S. 522 (1987)

H. Commentary

1. Hannah L. Buxbaum, Assessing Sovereign Interests in Cross-BorderDiscovery Disputes: Lessons from Aérospatiale, 38 Tex. Int’l L.J. 87 (2003)

2. Andreas F. Lowenfeld, Some Reflections on Transnational Discovery, 8 J.Comp. Bus. & Cap. Mkt. L. 419 (1986)

11


VI. Week 6: Tuesday, Nov. 1, 2016: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

A. Constitution and Federal Statute

1. U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1

2. 28 U.S.C.§ 1738

B. Uniform State Law

1. Nat’l Conf. of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws [now called theUniform Law Commission], Uniform Foreign-Country Money JudgmentsRecognition Act (2005)

C. Selections from the Restatements

1. Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States §§ 481& 482 (1987)


3. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §§ 92 & 98 (1971)

D. Cases

1. Comity

a. Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895)

2. Reciprocity

a. Somportex, Ltd. v. Phil. Chewing Gum Corp., 318 F. Supp. 161 (E.D.Pa. 1970)

3. Public Policy

a. Telnikoff v. Matusevitch, 702 A.2d 230 (Md. Ct. App. 1997)

E. Commentary

1. Ronald A. Brand, Federal Judicial Center, Recognition and Enforcement ofForeign Judgments (2012)

2. Kevin M. Clermont, Limiting the Last-in-Time Rule for Judgments(unpublished draft available on SSRN athttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2798182)

12


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2798182

3. Linda J. Silberman & Aaron D. Simowitz, Recognition and Enforcement ofForeign Judgments and Awards: What Hath Daimler Wrought?, 91 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 344 (2016)

13


reading group: transnational litigation in united … · syllabus fall 2016 professor rhonda...

Documents