CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. explained

Litigants:CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd.
Fullname: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:23-1201

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]

Background

Devas and Antrix are both Indian companies. In 2005, they entered into an agreement, which was subject to an arbitration clause. In 2011, Antrix repudiated the agreement, triggering the arbitration provision. In 2015, an arbitral commission awarded Devas $562.5 million. Until this point, the case had proceeded in tribunals outside of the United States.

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 and the state in which the court is located. 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. The Ninth Circuit reversed on August 1, 2023. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 4, 2024.

Notes and References

  1. Web site: Dodge . William S. . 2024-10-07 . Transnational Litigation at the Supreme Court, October Term 2024 . 2024-10-08 . Transnational Litigation Blog . en-US.
  2. Web site: Appendix . October 9, 2024.
  3. Web site: CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. . 2024-10-08 . SCOTUSblog . en-US.
  4. Gardner . Maggie . 2022 . The False Promise of General Jurisdiction . . 73 . 3 . 455-482 . HeinOnline.
  5. Lahav . Alexandra . 2022 . The New Privity in Personal Jurisdiction . . 73 . 3 . 540-582 . HeinOnline.
  6. Web site: 28 U.S. Code § 1608 - Service; time to answer; default . 2024-10-11 . LII / Legal Information Institute . en.