Standing

Pages:38-44
38 Volume 21, January–March 2015 international law update
© 2015 International Law Group, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com
Waddell v. Hendry Cnty. Sheri’s Oce, 329
F.3d 1300, 1309 (11th Cir.2003) (citing Toole v.
Baxter Healthcare Corp., 235 F.3d 1307, 1316
(11th Cir.2000)).
As the Court explained, although JASE’s
evidence met the rst three factors in the Waddell
analysis, they fall short under the fourth and
fth Waddell factors. JASE claimed that the suit
broth by Egas, one of CONECEL’s employees,
established that any potential civil action by
CONECEL against its former employees would be
baseless and without merit, thereby conrming that
there were no reasonably contemplated proceedings
and that CONECEL’s section 1782 application
was merely a shing expedition designed to harass
JASE and JAS USA. “But we cannot simply
assume that the allegations in Egas’s lawsuit are
true and the allegations in CONECEL’s section
1782 application are false. Like the district court,
we are in no position to assess the merits of either
CONECEL’s potential suit against Egas or Egas’s
retaliatory suit for slander.”
“In short, JASE’s newly discovered evidence
proered in its motion for reconsideration was not
material evidence nor evidence that would have
probably changed the outcome of the district court’s
decision. See Waddell, 329 F.3d at 1309. Indeed,
the bulk of JASE’s motion for reconsideration just
reiterated JASE’s already-rejected arguments. e
district court, therefore, acted entirely within its
sound discretion in denying JASE’s motion for
reconsideration. See Richardson, 598 F.3d at 740
(‘A motion for reconsideration cannot be used `to
relitigate *1275 old matters, raise argument or
present evidence that could have been raised prior
to the entry of judgment.’” (quoting Michael Linet,
Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th
Cir. 2005))).
e Court armed the District Court’s denial
of JASE’s motion to vacate the order granting
CONECEL’s 28 U.S.C. 28 U.S.C. § 1782
application, and the District Court’s denial of
JASE’s motion for reconsideration.
citation: Application of CONECEL v. JAS
Forwarding (USA), 747 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2014).
STANDING
District of Columbia Circuit finds than
an informer lacks standing under the
Neutrality Act; informer had claimed
benefits by denouncing the outfitting
in the U.S. of vessels that were to be
used against Israel, a country at peace
with the U.S.
Dr. Alan Bauer (Bauer) is a biologist and U.S.
citizen who was injured in a 2002 terrorist attack in
Jerusalem. According to the complaint, the terrorist
organization Hamas seized power in the Gaza Strip
in 2007 and began carrying out attacks against
civilian targets in Israel soon thereafter. Israel
responded by imposing a naval blockade on the Gaza
Strip. Bauer alleges that “anti-Israel organizations”
in the United States and other countries retaliated
by organizing eorts to breach the blockade and to
provide support to Hamas. Bauer further alleges
that several organizations and individuals in the
U.S., such as the “Free Gaza Movement” and the
“U.S. Boat to Gaza Project”, raised funds that were
ultimately used to equip the defendant vessels with
the means to commit hostilities against the state of
Israel.
On June 13, 2011, Bauer sent a letter to
Attorney General Eric Holder, identifying an
alleged violation of the Neutrality Act (Act) and
provided the names of 14 vessels that were involved.
On July 11, Bauer then led a complaint in the
District Court, setting out the allegations above
and requesting that the court commence forfeiture
proceedings against the vessels.
On its own motion, the District Court issued
an order to show cause why Bauer’s complaint
should not be dismissed for lack of standing.
e court also requested that the Department of
Justice le a statement of interest on standing in
the case. After receiving submissions from Bauer
and the United States Government (Government),
the District Court dismissed the complaint on the
ground that the Act did not authorize a private

To continue reading

Request your trial