CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. is a case currently pending before the Supreme Court of the United States. The case concerns the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and personal jurisdiction.[1][2] The case has not yet been set for argument as of October 10, 2024.[3]
| CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Full case name | CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited; Devas Multimedia America, Inc.; Devas Employees Mauritius Private Limited; Telecom Devas Mauritius Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd.; Devas Multimedia Private Limited |
| Docket no. | 23-1201 |
Background
editDevas and Antrix are both Indian companies.[2] In 2005, they entered into an agreement, which was subject to an arbitration clause. In 2011, Antrix repudiated the agreement, triggering the arbitration provision.[2] In 2015, an arbitral commission awarded Devas $562.5 million. Until this point, the case had proceeded in tribunals outside of the United States.[2]
Civil procedure in the United States requires American courts to dismiss cases when they lack personal jurisdiction over the parties.[4][5] Under International Shoe Co. v. Washington, that requirement is understood to entail minimum contacts between the defendant[a] and the state in which the court is located.[4] On the other hand, 28 U.S.C. § 1330 provides that federal courts "shall" have jurisdiction when process is correctly served on an opposing sovereign party under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.[6]
In 2018, Devas petitioned the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington to confirm the award. The court found it had personal jurisdiction and entered a stay.[2] The Ninth Circuit reversed on August 1, 2023.[2] The Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 4, 2024.[3]
Notes
editReferences
edit- ^ Dodge, William S. (2024-10-07). "Transnational Litigation at the Supreme Court, October Term 2024". Transnational Litigation Blog. Retrieved 2024-10-08.
- ^ a b c d e f "Appendix" (PDF). Retrieved October 9, 2024.
- ^ a b "CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 2024-10-08.
- ^ a b c Gardner, Maggie (2022). "The False Promise of General Jurisdiction". Alabama Law Review. 73 (3): 455–482 – via HeinOnline.
- ^ Lahav, Alexandra (2022). "The New Privity in Personal Jurisdiction". Alabama Law Review. 73 (3): 540–582 – via HeinOnline.
- ^ "28 U.S. Code § 1608 - Service; time to answer; default". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2024-10-11.