Conflicts of Jurisdiction Flashcards
Bremen v. Zapa (party choice)
Facts: • German corp contracted with US corp to transport an oil rig from Louisiana to the Adriatic Sea. During transportation, rig was damaged and towed to Florida, where the US Corp filed suit.
- The German Corp, however, asked the district court to enforce the forum-selection clause contained in the contract-placing jurisdiction in England, which was nuetral.
- Choice of forum clauses are legit unless show to be really unreasonable under the circumstances.
Rule: • Supreme Court says in this era of globalization we need to give legitimate expectation of the parties full ability and we must give effect to them. England is a neutral forum and they have expertise. We should not, under any circumstances, have our own views take precedent.
AND both parties were experienced in these types of contracts and freely entered into the contract
Lauritzen v. Larsen (balancing)
- Danish guy gets on Danish ship and signs a contract in NY. K says Danish law governs. Guy gets hurt and wants NY law to apply. (even though he’s an idiot with no ties to US)
- Guy wants Jones act to apply because he will get more damages
Issue: Who has jurisdiction?
•“Act of Congress ought never be construed to violate the law of national if any other possible construction remains.”- Charming Betsy
- Court evaluates the connecting factors of maritime law. 1)Place of wrongful act 2) Law of the flag (most important, think comity) 3) Allegiance of Domicile of the Injured 4)allegiance of the D shipowner 4) Place of contract 6) Inaccessibility of foreign forum 7) Law of the forum
- Comity→ If it only affects the vessel or those belonging to her and did not involve the peace of dignity of the country or the tranquility of the port is should be left by the local government to be dealt with by the authorities of the nation to which the vessel belonged.
Comity Definition
- neither a matter of absolute obligation on the one hand nor of mere courtesy and good will, upon the other. But it is the recognition which one nation allows w/in its territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws.
- Hilton v. Guyot
Timberlane (balancing)
Facts: •Timberline. a US company, gets shut down in Honduras by a competing mafia family and wants to bring suit in the US. against the Bank that shut them down (Bank of America)
Court says:•In order to find out if we have jurisdiction we must look at all the context and facts of case. If substantial effect we probably have jurisdiction
Factors are:
oElements to be weighed include the degree of conflict with foreign law or policy (most important)
oNationality or allegiance of the parties and the location or principal places of business of corporations
oExtent to which enforcement by either state can be expected to achieve compliance
oThe relative significance of effects on the US as compared w/ those elsewhere
oThe extent to which there is explicit purpose to harm or affect American commerce
oForeseeability of such effect
oRelative importance to the violations charged of conduct with the US as compared with conduct abroad.
- No indication of any conflict with the law or policy of the Honduran gov, not any comprehensive analysis of the relative connections and interests of Honduras and the US.
- Cons: may defendants were foreign, most activity was in Honduras, the conspiracy, most of the economic effects were felt in Honduras
Hartford Fire
Facts: Defendants, acting in London, were charged with conspiring to restrict the terms of certain kinds of insurance available in the US, in violation of the Sherman Act
Issue:whether principles of comity ought to lead the court to exercise judicial restraint and not exercise jurisdiction over the London insurance companies
Rule: He says that there is only an issue where the laws of two states conflict in such a way that one cannot comply with the laws of one country without violating the laws of the other country: “The only substantial question in this case is whether ‘there is in fact a true conflict between domestic and foreign law’.”
-Though the US made illegal what was legal in England, compliance with US law would not require violation of British law, so it’s ok. Souter doesn’t look to other factors
Hartford Fire DISSENT (scalia)
Court should have look at other factors per the restatement. 1)whether there is prescriptive jurisdiction (charming betsy) 2) if it would be reasonable to exercise. Then go through Souter analysis.
Reasonableness Factors:
- extent to which activity takes place in reg. state
- Connections: nationality, residence, economic activity between regulating state and person principally responsible for the activity reg.
- character of activity
- importance of reg. to reg. state
- other states interest in regulating activity
- likelihood of conflict
Piper (forum non conveniens)
- Crash in Scotland, all descedants of dead Scottish, all dead Scottish, aircraft manuf. by Piper in PA, and propellers in Ohio by Hartzel
- Dismissal will be appropriate where trial in the plaintiff’s chosen forum imposes a heavy burden on the defendant or the court, and where the plaintiff is unable to offer any specific reasons of convenience supporting of his choice
- Deference given when home venue is chosen
- Court must weigh the private interest factors affecting the convenience of the litigants and a list of public interest facts affecting the convenience of the forum.
- The need to apply foreign law pointed toward dismissal
Comity Policy
Comity is a necessary outgrowth of our international system of sovereign states. As people, products, and problems move freely among adjoining countries, so national interests cross territorial borders. Every nation must often rely on other countries to help it achieve its reg. expectations. Comity compels national courts to act at all times to increase the international legal ties that advance the rule of law w/in and among nations.
What is Party Choice?
An apparently simple way to resolve jurisdictional conflicts is for the parties to agree where disputes will be settled and what law will be applied
