Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In one of two consolidated purported class actions, Baumeister bought a ticket from Lufthansa for flights from Stuttgart to Munich, and then from Munich to San Francisco. The first flight, as indicated on his itinerary, was to be flown not by Lufthansa but by a regional German airline, Augsburg. That flight was cancelled. Lufthansa arranged substitute air transportation, but Baumeister arrived more than 17 hours after he was originally scheduled to arrive. European Union regulation EU 261 specifies damages for certain cancelled or delayed flights into and out of the European Union. Lufthansa’s contract with its passengers incorporates EU 261. In U.S. district court, Baumeister argued that the airline was contractually obligated to pay damages. That court dismissed, finding that the bridge carriers in both suits (Augsburg), not the airline that sold the tickets (Lufthansa) were liable for any damages. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the German regulatory body charged with enforcing EU 261 dismissed Baumeister’s claim after Lufthansa’s counsel notified it that Lufthansa had not operated the flight between Stuttgart and Munich. Similarly, in the companion case, the court rejected theories of contract and agency law, where EU 261 would not apply directly. View "Baumeister v. Deutsche Lufthansa AG" on Justia Law

VLM, a Montreal-based supplier, sold frozen potatoes to IT in Illinois. After nine successful transactions, IT encountered financial difficulty and failed to pay for the next nine shipments. Invoices sent after delivery included a provision purporting to make IT liable for collection-related attorney’s fees if it breached the contracts. VLM sued; the deadline for an answer passed. The court entered a default. On defendants' motion, the court vacated the default as to IT’s president only. All three defendants then filed answers, contesting liability for attorney’s fees. The judge applied the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code and found that the fee provision had been incorporated into the contract. The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods applied. On remand, the judge applied the Convention and held that the fee provision was not part of the contracts and that IT could benefit from this ruling, despite the prior entry of default. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. IT never expressly assented to the attorney’s fees provision in VLM’s trailing invoices, so under the Convention that term did not become a part of the contracts. VLM waived its right to rely on the default by failing to raise the issue until its reply brief on remand. View "VLM Food Trading Int'l, Inc. v. Ill. Trading Co." on Justia Law

Mother and father, Mexican citizens, dated in 2001-2002. In 2002, mother gave birth to a child, D.S., in Mexico. Although mother has had physical custody of D.S., father played an active part in the child’s life. In 2013, mother and D.S. moved to Chicago. Father sought D.S.’s return to Mexico under the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, to which Mexico and the U.S. are parties (International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 22 U.S.C. 9001). Once the child is in a participating country, local courts are empowered to resolve any questions about custody, support, or other family law matters. The Seventh Circuit held that the Hague Convention is no exception to the general rule, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1, that an issue about foreign law is a question of law, not fact, for purposes of litigation in federal court and that father had the necessary custodial right over D.S. at the time when mother refused to permit his return to Mexico. Because D.S.’s habitual residence is Mexico, mother’s retention of D.S. is wrongful under the Convention. The district court had adequate reason to refuse to defer to D.S.’s indications that he prefers to stay in the U.S. View "Salazar-Garcia v. Galvan-Pinelo" on Justia Law

Philos Tech, an Illinois company, sent equipment to Korea for delivery to P&D in connection with an alleged joint venture between the companies. The nature and origins of the joint venture are disputed. Defendant Don-Hee Park visited Illinois twice and met with Philos. Philos Tech filed suit in Illinois in 2008, alleging that P&D, Don-Hee and Jae-Hee unlawfully converted that equipment by refusing to return it after failing to increase Philo’s shares in P&D. The parties presented the court with competing translations of the documents, all of which are in Korean. There were transfers of funds and equipment between Korea and Illinois, but the purpose and details are unclear. The district court granted Philos Tech default judgment and awarded damages. After Philos Tech attempted to enforce this judgment in Korea, Defendants moved to vacate the judgment under FRCP 60(b)(4), asserting that the Illinois court’s judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court concluded that the request was untimely, but the Seventh Circuit reversed. Following a remand, the Seventh Circuit affirmed that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants and denial of Philos Tech’s motion asking the court to vacate its judgment on account of the Parks’ alleged fraud. View "Philos Techs., Inc. v. Philos & D, Inc." on Justia Law

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) removes sovereign immunity in actions involving personal injury or death resulting from an act of state-sponsored terrorism, 28 U.S.C. 1605A. Subsection 1610(g) allows plaintiffs with a judgment against a state sponsor of terrorism to attach and execute the judgment against property of the foreign state itself and any agency and instrumentality of the state. The plaintiffs, relatives of men who were kidnapped and murdered in 2004 by al-Qaeda, while working as U.S. military contractors in Iraq, obtained a default judgment under FSIA for $413 million. A month later, the court clerk sent a copy of the default judgment to the Syrian Foreign Ministry via a private delivery service; the delivery was rejected. The next day, Syria filed an appeal challenging the district court’s personal jurisdiction. The court stayed enforcement pending appeal. The District of Columbia Circuit found personal jurisdiction proper and affirmed the default judgment; found that a “reasonable time” had passed after entry of judgment and notice to Syria; and authorized attachment and execution of the judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed registration of the judgment in Illinois and the lower court’s issuance of a “turn over” order, rejecting the objections of other claimants of the Syrian assets View "Wyatt v. Gates" on Justia Law

The United States delivered a criminal summons to the office of Sinovel Wind (USA) in Texas in order to serve process on Sinovel Wind Group, a Chinese corporation and the owner of 100% of the shares of Sinovel (USA), which had been indicted for criminal copyright infringement, wire fraud and trade secret theft. The charges arose from Sinovel’s alleged scheme to steal computer source code from American Superconductor for use to assist in operating Sinovel’s wind turbines. Sinovel contested jurisdiction and moved to quash service. Concluding that Sinovel USA was the alter ego of Sinovel and that service on Sinovel USA was proper, the district court denied Sinovel’s motion. The Seventh Circuit concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear Sinovel’s appeal and that the case did not meet the high standards for issuance of a writ of mandamus. The court rejected arguments that U.S. criminal proceedings against Sinoval could interfere “with ongoing civil litigation in Chinese courts” over the same dispute and that this was an exceptional case in which the importance of the particular value at stake is sufficiently great that an immediate appeal must be allowed to protect that value. View "Sinovel Wind Grp. Co., Ltd v. Crabb" on Justia Law

Ortiz filed a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, seeking the return of his children to Mexico City. The children are currently residing in Chicago with Martinez, their mother. Martinez accused Ortiz of sexually molesting his seven-year-old daughter and asserted that their 16-year-old son had expressed a desire to remain in the United States. The district court denied the petition to return the children. After interviewing the children and hearing testimony from Martinez and a court appointed psychologist, the court found that Martinez had wrongfully removed the children from Mexico, but that an exception to the Convention’s mandatory-return rule applied with respect to each child. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Ortiz v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Air travelers sued Delta Airlines, seeking compensation for a nationwide class of persons who were inconvenienced when their flights from airports located in the European Union were delayed for more than three hours or cancelled on short notice. The suit was filed in the Northern District of Illinois and invoked the court’s diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 29 U.S.C. 1332(d). The claim cited a consumer-protection regulation promulgated by the European Parliament setting standardized compensation rates ranging from €250 to €600 (depending on flight distance) for cancellations and long delays of flights departing from airports located within EU Member States. The district court held that the regulation could not be enforced outside the European Union and dismissed the case. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The regulation is not incorporated into Delta’s contract of carriage, so the claim is not cognizable as a breach of contract. A direct claim for compensation under the regulation is actionable only as provided in the regulation itself, which requires that each European Union Member State designate an appropriate administrative body to handle enforcement responsibility and implicitly limits judicial redress to courts in Member States under the procedures of their own national law. View "Volodarskiy v. Delta Air Lines, Inc." on Justia Law

Enacted after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA), authorizes execution, in satisfaction of judgments against terrorists, on blocked assets that are seized or frozen by the United States. The plaintiffs, victims of terror, hold a judgment against al Qaeda for their $2.5 billion subrogation claims. The Seventh Circuit vacated summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs. Although plaintiffs have constitutional and statutory standing and TRIA is a remedial statute, under the statute the only assets subject to execution are blocked assets. Assets that are subject to a United States government license for final payment, transfer, or disposition, among other requirements, do not qualify as blocked assets. By the time plaintiffs filed their initial claims, the Office of Foreign Assets Control had already issued its license and the funds had already been arrested to preserve them for forfeiture; the funds were no longer blocked. View "United States v. Art Ins.Co." on Justia Law

Holocaust survivors and the heirs of victims sued the Hungarian national railway, the national bank, and private banks for the roles they played in the World War II genocide against Hungarian Jews. In 2012 appeals, the Seventh Circuit held that the national railway and national bank, instrumentalities of the government, could be sued in a U.S. federal court if the plaintiffs could demonstrate that they had exhausted any available Hungarian remedies or had a legally compelling reason for failure to do so. The court mandated dismissal of claims against two private banks for lack of personal jurisdiction, but denied requests by Erste Bank to review denial of its motion to dismiss. On remand, the district court dismissed the claims against the national defendants for failure to prove exhaustion of Hungarian remedies and dismissed Erste Bank on forum non conveniens grounds. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissals, without prejudice. While international law does not require exhaustion of domestic remedies before plaintiffs can say that international law was violated, principles of international comity require that these plaintiffs attempt to exhaust domestic remedies before foreign courts can provide remedies. If plaintiffs find that attempts to pursue remedies in Hungary are frustrated unreasonably or arbitrarily, a U.S. court could hear the claims. View "Albert v. Magyar Nemzeti Bank" on Justia Law