Weinstein v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, No. 09-3034, involved efforts to collect on a default judgment against Iran and in favor of the family of an individual severely injured in a 1996 suicide bombing in Jerusalem. An order granting plaintiff’s motion for appointment of receiver to attach defendant’s property in satisfaction of the prior judgment is affirmed as: 1) section 201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act provided courts with subject matter jurisdiction over post-judgment execution and attachment proceedings against property held in the hands of an instrumentality of the judgment-debtor, even if the instrumentality was not itself named in the judgment; 2) Congress, by virtue of providing subject matter jurisdiction over execution and attachment proceedings based in part on the Office of Foreign Asset Control’s determination of what assets were blocked, did not unconstitutionally delegate its authority to the Executive Branch; and 3) there was no conflict between the TRIA and the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights.   

SEC v. Byers, No. 09-0234, involved nonparties’ appeal from the district court’s order holding that its jurisdiction in rem and its equitable powers provided it with sufficient authority to issue an injunction barring non-parties from filing involuntary bankruptcy petitions against any of the defendants.  The court of appeals affirmed on the ground that, while it should be sparsely exercised, district courts possess the authority and discretion to enter anti-litigation orders, including those that bar the filing of involuntary bankruptcy petitions absent the district court’s permission.

Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. Am. Buddha, No. 09-1739, concerned a copyright infringement action in which the district court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The Second Circuit certified the following question to the New York Court of Appeals:  In copyright infringement cases, is the situs of injury for purposes of determining long-arm jurisdiction under N.Y. C.P.L.R. section 302(a)(3)(ii) the location of the infringing action or the residence or location of the principal place of business of the copyright holder?

McGullam v. Cedar Graphics, Inc., No. 08-4661, involved an action alleging federal and state law claims of a sexually hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and retaliation.  The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant, on the ground that the one non-trivial comment that may fall within the limitations period is insufficiently related to the earlier course of alleged harassment.

Related Resources

  • Full Text of SEC v. Byers, No. 09-0234
  • Full Text of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. Am. Buddha, No. 09-1739
  • Full Text of McGullam v. Cedar Graphics, Inc., No. 08-4661
  • Full Text of Weinstein v. Islamic Repub. of Iran, No. 09-3034
  • Full Text of Padmore v. Holder, No. 09-0243

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules