international law update Volume 22, April–June 2016
© 2016 International Law Group, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com
that characterized §3196 as ‘an unprecedented
Congressional action’ to ‘amend’ treaties like the one
at issue in this case. Gouveia v. Vokes, 800 F.Supp.
241, 250 (E.D.Pa.1992). But that case reached this
conclusion only by rst making the same mistake
Bašić does, concluding, without analysis, that the
relevant treaty language ‘forbids the extradition of
American citizens.’ Id. at 242 (citing Valentine, 299
U.S. at 5, 57 S.Ct. 100). is treaty language does
no such thing: there is a vast dierence between not
being bound to do an act and being forbidden to
do it. Finally, the only thing amended by § 3196
is the U.S.Code. See Hilario v. United States, 854
F.Supp. 165, 173 (E.D.N.Y.1994).[3] And § 3196
is dispositive: the Secretary of State is empowered
to extradite U.S. citizens to Bosnia, provided that
the Treaty’s other requirements are met.
citation: Bašić v. Steck, 819 F.3d 897 (6th Cir.
Fifth Circuit reviews appeal of Mexican
party seeking discovery from Texas-
based businesses for pending litigation
in Mexico; one of the defendants evaded
service and eventually its Cayman Islands
registered agent was served; Court now
rejects argument that district court
lacked jurisdiction to issue a Rule 45
subpoena for a Cayman Islands citizen, in
the Cayman Islands or the jurisdiction
to enforce the subpoena
Grupo Mexico SAB de CV (“Grupo Mexico”)
sought discovery from SAS Asset Recovery, Ltd.
(“SAS”), a Cayman Islands chartered company, and
Highland Capital Management, L.P. (“Highland
Capital”), both with an oce in Dallas, Texas,
for use in pending litigation in Mexico. A federal
magistrate judge in Dallas approved the discovery.
In October 2014, Grupo Mexico served a subpoena
on Highland Capital, which Highland Capital
promptly moved to quash on several grounds.
SAS on the other hand avoided and evaded
numerous attempts by Grupo Mexico at service
in Dallas and New York City. Grupo Mexico then
served on an SAS registered agent in the Cayman
Islands pursuant to § 10(c) of the Hague Service
Convention, and moved to compel production by
both parties. On the January 2015, hearing SAS
challenged court’s personal jurisdiction over it. SAS
argued that service of the subpoena on its registered
agent was improper because Cayman Islands law
requires a court order in some circumstances.
e court granted Highland’s motion to quash;
granted the motion to compel against SAS; and
rejected SAS’s objection on two grounds: SAS had
been properly served in the Cayman Islands and
had also waived any objections by failing to respond
timely to the subpoena.
SAS then led a special appearance re-
emphasizing its objection to “personal jurisdiction
and seeking reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s
rulings before the district court. However, it did
not challenge the magistrate judge’s ndings that
the three prerequisites to a § 1782 discovery order
had been met, nor did it disagree that it “resides
or is found in” the Northern District of Texas. e
court upheld the motion to compel and found that
SAS failed to object timely to the subpoena, both as
to the manner of service and personal jurisdiction.
SAS appealed.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit arms district court’s decision.
In its appeal SAS asserted that the district
court lacked “subject matter jurisdiction” because
“Congress has not enacted any statute or rule that
gave the District Court the jurisdiction to issue a
Rule 45 subpoena for service on SAS, a Cayman
Islands citizen, in the Cayman Islands or the
jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena against SAS
after SAS failed to respond.” e Court denies this
argument as SAS failed to raise it in the trial court,
and states:

To continue reading

Request your trial