StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

The Court Procedures of Matimak Trading Co and D.A.Y. Kids Sportswear Inc - Case Study Example

Cite this document
Summary
This paper "The Court Procedures of Matimak Trading Co and D.A.Y. Kids Sportswear Inc" focuses on the fact that the Plaintiff, Matimak Trading Company, appealed the order of the US District Court for the Southern District of NY, which dismissed the plaintiff's claims for lack of jurisdiction. …
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER98% of users find it useful
The Court Procedures of Matimak Trading Co and D.A.Y. Kids Sportswear Inc
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "The Court Procedures of Matimak Trading Co and D.A.Y. Kids Sportswear Inc"

(MATIMAK TRADING CO. v. ALBERT KHALILY, d/b/a Unitex Mills, Inc., and D.A.Y. KIDS SPORTSWEAR INC Citation (United s Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 118 F.3d 76 (1997)) Facts: The Plaintiff, Matimak Trading Company, appealed the order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which dismissed the plaintiff's claims for lack of jurisdiction due to the plaintiff's being incorporated under the laws of Hong Kong. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reconsidered the lower courts grant of dismissal, in light of whether Hong Kong may be regarded as a "foreign state" for the purpose of bringing suit in a U.S. court (alienage jurisdiction). The relevant laws in this case are U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, and 28 United States Judicial Code 1332(a)(2). U.S. Const. art. III, 2, cl. 1. grants federal judicial power over all cases that are between a U.S. State or the citizen of a U.S. State and any "foreign States, Citizens or Subjects". 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(2) provides for jurisdiction over a civil action that is between the citizen(s) of a U.S. State, and the "citizens or subjects of a foreign state". Procedure (Backround): The plaintiff attempted to sue Albert Khalily and D.A.Y. Kids Sportswear, Inc., in the Southern District of New York, on the basis of alleged breach of contract. Both defendants were incorporated in the State of New York. The plaintiff claimed the right to bring suit in a U.S. court under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(2), which grants jurisdiction to the court over civil disputes between U.S. citizens and "citizens or subjects of a foreign state". During the breach of contract case, in June 1996, the court, of its accord, brought up the issue of whether it had proper jurisdiction over the matter. After the parties involved had briefed the issue, in August 1996, the court dismisssed it on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, having determined that, for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Hong Kong is not a "foreign state", and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot be considered a "citizen or subject" of one. Issue(s): (a) Does "Hong Kong" merit the legal status of a "foreign state", thus allowing Matimak the status of a "citizen or subject of a foreign state" for the purposes of alienage jurisdiction; (b) Does Matimak have the status of a "citizen or subject" of the United Kingdom because of the Hong Kong's status as a "British Dependent Territory", when Matimak brought suit; (c)Does every non-U.S. citizen, in fact, have the right to claim alienage jurisdiction, when engaged in a civil dissent with a U.S. citizen Holding: (a) No. Hong Kong is not recognized a "foreign state" by the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, therefore, Matimak is not a "citizen or subject of a foreign state" for the purposes of alienage jurisdiction. (b) No. Matmak is not a "citizen or subject" of the United Kingdom because the United Kingdom does not recognize corporations founded in Hong Kong as its "citizens or subjects". (c) No. Only the "citizens or subjects" of foreign states which are recognized as being sovereign states by the U.S. Government may claim alienage jurisdiction. Reasoning: (a) The definition of "foreign state" is not explicitly provided within the Constitution, nor in the relevent law. However, 13B C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure 3604 (1984) holds that the generally recognized definition of a "foreign state", for purposes of U.S. legal status is a state that is recognized formally by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. The Court used this definition to provide a ruling on the question of alienage jurisdiction in Iran Handicraft and Carpet Export Center v. Marjan International Corp., 655 F. Supp. 1275 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 868 F.2d 1267 (2d Cir. 1988). At that time, the Court determined that because only the President has the power to receive Foreign Ministers, formal recognition of "foreign states" is solely the realm of the Executive Branch, and not a matter for the courts to decide. Other precedent, as well as International Law, upheld this determination, and so found that under these terms, Hong Kong could not be considered a "foreign state". Matimak argued that the U.S. gave Hong Kong such recognition de facto, without formal acknowledgement, by entering into economic agreements with Hong Kong as though it were a sovereign state. Other cases where such de facto status was granted by the court, such as Murarka v. Bachrack Brothers, Inc., 215 F.2d 547 (2d Cir. 1954), however, were shown to have still taken into account the above mentioned criterion. Therefore, without official recognition by the Executive Branch, Hong Kong could not be considered a "foreign state". (b) Based on common practice and precedent, both in U.S. and International Law, the court affirmed the right of sovereign states to set their own criteria for determining who is a citizen or subject of theirs. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 668 (1898), the Court said that sovereign nations have the right to determine by the own laws, rules, and contitutions, who is and who is not entitled to their citizenship. Although Matimak alleged entitlement to British citizenship under British Nationality Act 1981, it was determined by the Court that the Act applies only to natural citizens and not to corporations; however, the Court also dtermined that if it did apply to corporations, Matimak would still not be a citizen under its provisions because Matimak had not fulfilled the requirements for citizenship. The British case Windert Watch Co. v. Remex Elecs. Ltd., 468 F. Supp. 1242, 1246 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (citing British Companies Act 1948 406) firmly set the precedent under British Law that Hong Kong corporations are not British citizens or subjects. (c)All non-U.S. citizens are not entitled to invoke alienage jurisdiction because, although this may have been what the Constitutional Framers originally intended, "statelessness", as it is known today did not exist at the time the Constitution was drafted. In Houghton Mifflin Co. v. Stackpole Sons, Inc., 104 F.2d 306, 309-10 (2d Cir. 1939), it was dtermined that "statelessness" was a recent phenonenon, which would likely cause legal confusion in the future. Because the status of being legally stateless is more common now, it has become well entrenced in International Law. Although stateless persons are thus not allowed to sue in Federal Court under alienage jurisdiction, it was determined in Romanella, 1997 WL 272247, at *1; Blair Holdings, 133 F. Supp. At 501 that they may seek relief in state venues. Concurring/dissenting opinions (Opinions): Altimari, Circuit Judge, dissents, arguing that every non-U.S. citizen does, in fact, have the right to claim alienage jurisdiction, when engaged in a civil dissent with a U.S. citizen. He bases this on the above-mentioned point that the Framers of the Constitution most likely had this in mind when drafting the alienage jurisdiction clause. In 1891, Chief Justice Story, wrote that any person who is not a citizen of the United States may generally be considered an alien who is entitled to sue in a U.S. court under alienage jurisdiction. 11 Am. U.J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 195, 211 (quoting Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States at 499 (5th ed. 1891); The Federalist No. 80, at 58889 (Alexander Hamilton) (B. Wright ed., 1961)). He supports the claim that the U.S. has recognized Hong Kong de facto, by virtue of economic agreements and treaties, and concludes that it is a mistake to allow foreign laws to dictate the rulings of U.S. Courts. WEST SHELL, JR., et al., Plaintiffs v. R. W. STURGE LTD., et al., Defendants Case No. C-1-93-0802 United States District Court For The Southern District Of Ohio, Western Division 850 F. Supp. 620, 1993 U.S. Dist. Decision December 10, 1993, Decided summary: The plaintiffs wished to rescind their international contract with Loyds of London, which stated irrevocably the forum of any dispute would be British, claiming under the laws of their native state of Ohio, they were afforded greater protections. 1.Hauck, Middendorf, and Shell, members of Loyds of London and residents of Cincinnati, Ohio, filed a complaint in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. A9308995 alleging that Sturge sold the plaintiffs securities which were not registered and not exempt from registration as required by O.R.C. 1701.01 et seq. (Ohio Blue Sky Laws); therefore, the securities and all related documents were illegal and void. Plaintiffs alleged that securities sold by Sturge, were sold through persons not licensed to sell securities in Ohio violating the Ohio Blue Sky Laws. Plaintiffs alleged that the Corporation, Society, and Council of Loyd's of London aided Sturge in the sale of the illegal securities; therefore, they were jointly and severally liable with Sturge. 2. Issues: 2.1.Does the issue of greater protection have weight over the forum of international law. Plaintiffs became members (Names) with Lloyd's in 1984, 1978, and 1985 respectively, specifically agreeing that their liability would extend to their entire net worth, even though they had no control over potential loss inherent to the insurance business. Under the terms of their contract, disputes were to be heard and arbitrated by British Law. They conceded no misconduct by defendants in connection with their original investment sales. Initially, they received profits. Recently, they suffered losses. The future outcome of their investments with Lloyd's is undetermined, however; they have a reasonable belief their losses will far exceed their profits. They purchased securities through the defendant, a broker in the state of Ohio, who under the terms of contract with Loyds, was their Member Agent. Plaintiffs sought severance with Lloyd's and to be returned to their original positions, as though investments had never occurred. Plaintiffs were willing to return any profits received by virtue of their investments with Lloyd's. Plaintiffs turned to the protections allegedly afforded them under the Ohio Blue Sky Laws, in order to obtain rescission. While the broker's credentials were of question, the motions before the court did not address this issue. The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction of funds on grounds that dispersal of funds would cause undue economic injury. The court initially granted an ex parte restraining order, agreeing the issue of venue would be decided first. A motion for temporary injunction on the part of the plaintiff was filed. The defendant filed a concurrent motion for dismissal on the basis of improper venue, claiming that their agreement was governed by international law, specifically the contract between both parties, which placed the forum in British Court. the court ruled that contractual aspects of international business had equal weight with Ohio's laws governing securities, specifically regarding legal forums chosen by the parties of international contracts. The motion for the defense was granted. The court dismissed this civil suit on the basis that it had been filed in an improper venue. 2.2 Does diversity of protection have weight over the forum of international law. The plaintiffs claimed that the original contract was inadequate to redress their injuries and the laws governing securities transactions in Ohio were superior for their purpose, to their terms of contract under British law. The court determined that under British law, the plaintiffs had adequate recourse. The court construed this to be artful pleading. On appeal, Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 24 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 1995 FED App. 0176P (6th Cir.) File Name: 95a0176p.06 No. 94-3119 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT I. The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. , 407 U.S. 1 (1972). states "The correct approach [is] to enforce the forum clause specifically unless" plaintiffs "[can] clearly show..." 1. that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust 2. that the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching. Bremen , 407 U.S. at 15. 3. that "trial in the contractual forum will be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that [they] will for all practical purposes be deprived of [their] day in court," id. at 18, 4. "enforcement would contravene a strong public policy" of the forum state. Id. at 15. An affidavit prepared by Barrister John Lewis Powell stated one remedy "under English law for misrepresentation (whether innocent, negligent or fraudulent) is rescission", that plaintiffs may be entitled to indemnity against specific liability, and could make claims against defendants based on tort law; including deceit, breach of contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty. " Citing this as well as three additional cases, the court agreed that plaintiffs have remedies which they can pursue in England. In summary, both courts stated that nationals seeking remedy in American courts for matters of international contracts simply because the law reflected more favorably upon them here, had a parochial approach. In such cases, where agreement of forum and country of law were already established, seeking remedy under American law would reflect poorly in international trade relations. Works Referenced Ray, August. Matimak Trading Co. v. Khalily and D.A.Y. Kids Sportswear Inc., In International Business Law, Text , Cases and Readings (Ed.4), (pp. 12-16). Ray, August. Shell v. R.W Sturg, In International Business Law, Text , Cases and Readings (Ed.4), (pp. 152-155). How to Write A Brief, accessed on 1 Sept. 2006, at URL: http://www.4lawschool.com/howto.htm Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(The Court Procedures of Matimak Trading Co and D.A.Y. Kids Sportswear Case Study, n.d.)
The Court Procedures of Matimak Trading Co and D.A.Y. Kids Sportswear Case Study. Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/law/1509886-business-law-essay
(The Court Procedures of Matimak Trading Co and D.A.Y. Kids Sportswear Case Study)
The Court Procedures of Matimak Trading Co and D.A.Y. Kids Sportswear Case Study. https://studentshare.org/law/1509886-business-law-essay.
“The Court Procedures of Matimak Trading Co and D.A.Y. Kids Sportswear Case Study”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/law/1509886-business-law-essay.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF The Court Procedures of Matimak Trading Co and D.A.Y. Kids Sportswear Inc

Kids Sportswear Inc

The paper entitled 'kids sportswear inc' focuses on Plaintiff Matimak Trading Co.... kids sportswear inc.... which sought to sue Albert Khalily and d.... hellip; In June 1996, the district court sua sponte raised the issue of the court's subject matter jurisdiction.... the court concluded that Hong Kong is not a “foreign state” under the diversity statute.... Coal Sales, inc.... Codec trading Ltd....
1 Pages (250 words) Essay

Police Actions & Courts Procedures

This is because systematic respect of human rights by police officers enables them to develop professionalism in their approach to Police actions and court procedures Questions Do you agree that for police action to be just, it must recognize the rights of individuals while at the same time hold them accountable to the social obligations defined by law?... t is true to say that the court has put adequate measures to protect citizens from overzealous police officers....
2 Pages (500 words) Assignment

Unjustified Questioning and Searches

The Supreme court specifies that police might conduct searches or arrests without necessarily producing a warrant so long as the circumstances justifies and/or necessitates such seizures or arrests (exigent circumstance).... The Miranda requires that the police inform a person in custody of their right to remain silent during a criminal proceeding and inform them that anything said might be used as evidence against them in a court.... Russell where the supreme court upheld a layperson's decision to sentence North to 30 days imprisonment for drunk driving....
2 Pages (500 words) Essay

Procedures in the Justice System

The place of trial is discussed in the Sixth Amendment of the constitution which indicates that the place of trial of any criminal is in the District court of the state where the crime was committed.... This is also guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment within the Due Process… In regards to the place of trial, the Sixth Amendment also guarantees that the trial will be speedy, public and tried by an impartial jury as well....
4 Pages (1000 words) Essay

The Six Amendment during Trial

This right is essential as the defendant gets the opportunity to listen first hand to the witnesses and… This right also saves the court consultation time with the defendant as the defendant is present hence no time is wasted.... The District Court denied the writ but the court of appeal reversed the decision.... The Supreme court granted certiorari to the inmate but ruled that the habeas could not be granted because there was no proof of the attorney being prejudiced or showing deficient performance which are the requirements of granting this writ against the attorney....
4 Pages (1000 words) Essay

Finance and Accounting: Columbia Sportswear Stock Analysis

The details of the report below indicate on the stock analysis of Columbia sportswear Columbia sportswear Company manufactures outwear including those meant for sports activities.... Headquartered in Cedar Mill Oregon, Columbia sportswear produces footwear, camping equipment, headgear, outerwear and skiwear having proved the highest seller of skiwear in America in the year 2001.... The business started as a family business that developed slowly to reach the global market after the purchase of a small company Columbia Hat Company turning into today's huge company Columbia sportswear (Columbia History)....
9 Pages (2250 words) Case Study

English Sportswear Companies Cash in on Brands

The author of this coursework "English sportswear Companies Cash in on Brands" describes the sense of the impact of brand endurance on European sportswear associations, advantages of brand and brand tendency.... nbsp; The research will dwell on the English sportswear companies.... In regards to this brand is sportswear.... In order to indicate how the brands tend to persuade the clients of the European sportswear to become loyal and long term clients....
10 Pages (2500 words) Coursework

The Current System Utilized by Tracksuits-N-Sportswear Company Limited

… 1.... Introduction -the proposed systemIn consideration of the prevailing system, it is proposed that the new system be ERP based, in that in can integrate all the functionalities of the company.... The system to be implemented should be an Enterprise 1.... Introduction -the proposed systemIn consideration of the prevailing system, it is proposed that the new system be ERP based, in that in can integrate all the functionalities of the company....
11 Pages (2750 words) Case Study
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us