Views
Just released: EFFORTS Report on EU Policy Guidelines
A new Report on EU Policy Guidelines was just posted on the website of EFFORTS (Towards more EFfective enFORcemenT of claimS in civil and commercial matters within the EU), an EU-funded Project conducted by the University of Milan (coord.), the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law, the University of Heidelberg, the Free University of Brussels, the University of Zagreb, and the University of Vilnius.
The Report was authored by Marco Buzzoni, Cristina M. Mariottini, Michele Casi, and Carlos Santaló Goris.
Building upon the outcomes of the national and international exchange seminars and the Project’s analytical reports, this Report formulates policy guidelines addressed to EU policymakers and puts forth suggestions to improve the current legal framework provided under the EFFORTS Regulations (namely: the Brussels I-bis Regulation and the Regulations on the European Enforcement Order, the European Small Claims Procedure, the European Payment Order, and the European Account Preservation Order) with regard to the enforcement of claims.
This Report was among the outputs and findings discussed at the Project’s Final Conference, hosted by the University of Milan on 30 September 2022, which provided an international forum where academics, policymakers, and practitioners discussed the Project’s key findings and exchanged their views on the national implementation of – and the path forward for – the EFFORTS Regulations. The content of the Final Conference will enrich the Final Study, which is forthcoming on the Project’s website.
Regular updates on the EFFORTS Project are available via the Project’s website, as well as LinkedIn and Facebook pages.
Project JUST-JCOO-AG-2019-881802
With financial support from the Civil Justice Programme of the European Union
Now or Then? The Temporal Aspects of Choice-of-Law Clauses
Several years ago, I published a paper that examined how U.S. courts interpret choice-of-law clauses. That paper contains a detailed discussion of the most common interpretive issues—whether the clause selects the tort laws of the chosen jurisdiction in addition to its contract laws, for example—that arise in litigation. There was, however, one important omission. The paper did not consider the question of whether the word “laws” in a choice-of-law clause should be interpreted to select the laws of the chosen jurisdiction (1) at the time the contract was signed, or (2) at the time of litigation.
In declining to address this issue, the paper was in good company. Neither the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (§ 2) nor the draft Restatement (Third) of Conflict of Laws (§ 1.02) discuss the relationship between choice-of-law and time. Nevertheless, the omission bothered me.
In the spring of 2021, I saw that Jeff Rensberger at the South Texas College of Law had posted a paper to SSRN entitled Choice of Law and Time. After downloading and reading the paper, I discovered that it contained no discussion of choice-of-law clauses. It was devoted solely to the question of how courts should address the issue of temporality in cases where the parties had declined to select a law in advance. After reading the paper, I wrote to Jeff to propose that we collaborate on a second paper that specifically addressed the temporal question in the context of choice-of-law clauses. When we spoke on the phone to discuss the project, however, we did not agree on the answer. Jeff argued for the laws at the time of signing. I argued for the laws at the time of litigation.
In early 2022, Jeff sent me a draft of his new paper, Choice of Law and Time Part II: Choice of Law Clauses and Changing Law, which makes the case for interpreting choice-of-law clauses to select the law at the time of signing. In response, I drafted an essay arguing that they should be interpreted to select the law at the time of litigation. A draft of my essay, The Canon of Evolving Law, is now available for download on SSRN.
If you happen to be one of the small number of people in the world interested in this fascinating (though obscure) interpretive issue, I would encourage you to download both papers and decide for yourself who has the better of the argument.
[This post is cross-posted at Transnational Litigation Blog.]
US District Court dismisses the case filed by Mexico against the US weapons industry regarding non-contractual obligations
Written by Mayela Celis
On 30 September 2022, a US District Court in Boston (Massachusetts, USA) dismissed the case filed by Mexico against the US weapons manufacturers regarding non-contractual obligations (among them, negligence and unjust enrichment). According to Reuters, the reason given by the judge to dismiss the case is that “federal law [Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act] ‘unequivocally’ bars lawsuits seeking to hold gun manufacturers responsible when people use guns for their intended purpose” and that none of the exceptions contained therein applied.
One statement worthy of note as stated in multiple news media is: “While the court has considerable sympathy for the people of Mexico, and none whatsoever for those who traffic guns to Mexican criminal organizations, it is duty-bound to follow the law.”
The full case citation is Estados Unidos Mexicanos (plaintiff) vs. SMITH & WESSON BRANDS, INC.; BARRETT FIREARMS MANUFACTURING, INC.; BERETTA U.S.A. CORP.; BERETTA HOLDING S.P.A.; CENTURY INTERNATIONAL ARMS, INC.; COLT’S MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; GLOCK, INC.; GLOCK GES.M.B.H.; STURM, RUGER & CO., INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC. D/B/A INTERSTATE ARMS (defendants), Case 1:21-cv-11269, filed in 2021.
In a nutshell, the allegations made by Mexico are the following (as stated in the complaint):
- Defendants have legal duties to distribute their guns safely and avoid arming criminals in Mexico;
- Defendants are fully on notice that their conduct causes unlawful trafficking to Mexico;
- Defendants actively assist and facilitate trafficking of their guns to drug cartels in Mexico:
- Defendants actively assist and facilitate the unlawful tracking because it maximizes their sales and profits;
- The Government has taken reasonable measures to try to protect itself from defendants’ unlawful conduct;
- Defendants cause massive injury to the government.
Claims for relief are (as stated in the complaint):
Negligence, public nuisance, defective condition – unreasonably dangerous, negligence per se, gross negligence, unjust enrichment and restitution, violation of CUTPA [Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act], Violation of Mass. G.L. c. 93A [Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act], punitive damages.
In addition to the argument given by the judge, I believe that it would be very hard to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Think for example of the minimum contacts and the reasonableness test, in particular what are the contacts of the defendants with the state of Massachusetts (but see for example: Smith & Wesson is indeed based in Massachusetts until 2023), the existence of justified expectations that may be protected or hurt, and the forum State’s [the United States of America} interest in adjudicating the dispute.
Moreover, and aside from jurisdictional issues, given that the actual damage occurred overseas, an important issue would be to prove the causation link between the conduct of the defendants and the damage. This will prove particularly difficult considering all the intermediaries that exist in the weapons’ trade (legal and illegal, second-hand sales, pawn shops, etc.).
Nevertheless, this is a very interesting initiative and perhaps it is a battle worth fighting for (if only to raise public awareness). One thing is for sure: the Mexican Government has shown its increasing concern about the illicit traffic of firearms in its territory and its commitment to end it.
The Mexican Federal Government will appeal the judgment. The official statement is available here.
We will post any new updates on this blog. Stay tuned!
News
Pax: Ready for the Ulrich Huber Round?
The Pax Moot Court Competition has today launched the case of the Ulrich Huber Round! Read all about the content moderators and their dissatisfaction with Watermelon Information Technology on the Paxmoot webpage. Safe Socials Foundation has today instituted proceedings in the Maastricht court, which will hear the case between 9 and 11 April (see the schedule).
We hope to see you there, as pleaders, judges or audience! Don’t forget to register.
PACE “Creating Privacy Awareness in Civil Enforcement” – On-Line Training Seminars
The following information has been kindly provided by Zlaty Mihailova, Center for International Legal Cooperation (CILC).
The EU-funded project PACE “Creating Privacy Awareness in Civil Enforcement” examines the intersection of civil enforcement and data protection and aims to contribute to the effective and coherent application of EU data protection law in civil enforcement procedures.
The PACE Project is launching free-of-charge on-line training seminars for enforcement agents and/or their staff on a national and transnational level for the EU member states and EU candidate countries. Read more
Brace yourself: The US Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the firearms case of Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico)
This month the US Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (Mexico). For more information, click here. For some Private International Law implications, click here.
The petitioners are: Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc.; Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.; Beretta U.S.A. Corp; Glock, Inc.; Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc.; Witmer Public Safety Group, Inc., d/b/a Interstate Arms; Century International Arms, Inc.; and Colt’s Manufacturing Company, LLC.