Still flush with success from its win at the First Circuit against U.S. gun manufacturers, Mexico has scored a new victory in federal court—this time, against U.S. gun dealers. In Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Diamondback Shooting Sports, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Judge Rosemary Márquez) ruled that Mexico could move forward on claims of negligence, negligent entrustment, and unjust enrichment under Arizona law. Like the First Circuit, Judge Márquez held that Mexico’s claims are not barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) because they fall ..read more

In 2021, the Government of Mexico filed a lawsuit against U.S. firearm manufacturers demanding $10 billion in damages for the industry’s role in facilitating illegal cross-border gun trafficking and seeking injunctive relief to change the way gun makers do business. Mexico’s lawsuit had to confront the industry’s notorious federal immunity shield—the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)—which Congress passed in 2005, granting firearm manufacturers and sellers immunity from civil lawsuits arising out of the criminal misuse of weapons. To overcome this immunity shield, Mexico offere ..read more

An opinion last month issued by a Texas appellate court illustrates a tempting but potentially dangerous doctrinal shortcut: applying a test developed for subject matter jurisdiction to the analysis of general personal jurisdiction. The diversity statute (28 U.S.C. § 1332) defines a corporation’s citizenship as its place of incorporation and its “principal place of business” (PPB). In Hertz Corp. v. Friend (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a split among the lower courts by interpreting PPB in § 1332 to refer to the corporation’s “nerve center.” Separately, in Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014 ..read more

Last week, the federal district court for the District of Massachusetts (Chief Judge Dennis Saylor) dismissed a complaint brought by Mexico against seven U.S. gun manufacturers and one distributor. According to the complaint, the defendants design, market, and sell guns in ways they know will arm Mexican drug cartels. Mexico has strict gun laws, but an estimated half million guns flow from the United States into Mexico each year. The district court held that a U.S. statue, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), barred most of Mexico’s claims and that Mexico failed to state ..read more

Professor Maggie Gardner’s thought-provoking post on the role of the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) in forum non conveniens analysis in IMSS v. Stryker and IMSS v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings led me to consider how the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) factors into these cases. Interestingly, both defendant corporations, Stryker Corporation and Zimmer Biomet Holdings, had already reached deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) with the DOJ or SEC regarding corrupt practices in Mexico.  The existence of FCPA settlements raises some interesting issues not only for the forum non conve ..read more

In March, both the Sixth and the Seventh Circuits affirmed forum non conveniens dismissals of suits brought by Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS), Mexico’s main social service agency, against U.S. corporations for their alleged bribery of Mexican government officials. IMSS had argued that the U.N. Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) guarantees it the option of suing in U.S. courts. Both courts of appeals reasoned that the treaty does not prohibit forum non conveniens dismissals. But their application of forum non conveniens effectively guts UNCAC’s provision by suggesting that any s ..read more