Browse the archives

Browse the articles in this issue.

• ARBITRATION
  In arbitration dispute, Fifth Circuit holds that, where it only has secondary jurisdiction under New York Arbitration Convention, it should treat Plaintiff’s claims based on RICO and state fraud law that seek to rectify harm suffered from unfavorable Swiss arbitration award as collateral attacks subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
• DIVORCE (RELIGIOUS)
  Where Jewish husband had agreed in writing with his Jewish wife, that immediately after their Quebec civil divorce, the husband would grant release from marriage under Jewish Law where he delayed doing so for fifteen years, Supreme Court of Canada upheld award to wife of damages for breach of contract as supported by balance of interests in favor of public order and lack of countervailing religious considerations on husband’s part
• FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT
  On appeal in damage actions against senior federal officials by four U.K. citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay, D.C. Circuit affirms dismissal of claims under Alien Tort Claims Act, Geneva Conventions, and U.S. Constitution, holding (1) that Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) controlled and that Defendants’ alleged mistreatment of Plaintiffs lay in course of U.S. officials’ employment thus barring such claims and (2) that Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not apply extraterritorially to aliens
• FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE
  In case of parallel litigation where parties’ contract contained clause designating Australian court as proper forum, Federal Court of Australia rules that, where defending U.S. party’s challenge to its jurisdiction is still pending, Australian party’s request for notices for U.S. party to produce documents is premature
• JURISDICTION (SUBJECT MATTER)
  Third Circuit holds that, for federal subject matter jurisdiction to exist, Plaintiff with dual U.S. and foreign citizenship (1) may not rely upon her foreign nationality while living abroad as basis for alienage jurisdiction and (2) cannot rely on diversity clause, since Plaintiff was unable to show that she is domiciled in U.S. state diverse from that of all Defendants