637 F. Supp. 487 - Magnus Electronics, Inc. v. Argentine Republic’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Court: And, finally, Rule 15(a) which talks about liberally granting leave to amend— Mr. Brainerd: Yes. The Court: —isn’t applicable when an action is dismissed. It relates to leave being granted liberally and freely before that. Now, I ruled based on the facts that you had asserted in your third effort at a complaint. Mr. Brainerd: The second amended? The Court: Yes. [] [S]ubject matter [] jurisdiction was lacking. Mr. Brainerd: Yes. The Court: And, I stated the reasons for it. Mr. Brainerd: Right. The Court: If you want to try again with your other set of facts, I guess you are free to do that because subject matter jurisdiction is not, of course, a determination on the merit[s]. But, you are going to have to do it in the context of filing a lawsuit and serving the Argentine Republic and avoiding the several problems that plagued your efforts the last time around. Mr. Brainerd: Yes. The second amended complaint I freely admit was less than artfully drafted— The Court: No, it was very artfully drafted. It just didn’t get federal jurisdiction. So, you know, there is nothing— Mr. Brainerd: It didn’t contain a lot of essential elements of what I consider to be in the case. The Court: Well, you are free to do that now but not in this lawsuit. The Court: All right. In any event, the reason for the denial of the motion is basically it’s a Rule 60(b) motion and you have not asserted the appropriate justifications. And in addition to that there is no prejudice. So that— Mr. Brai”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Magnus Electronics, Inc. v. La Republica Argentina

2. “1. Argentina is the sole defendant in this second action. 2. If suit is to lie against Argentina, it must be grounded on one of two provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (the “Act”), the first and third clauses of 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(2) (“Section 1605(a)(2)”), which strip away sovereign immunity only if “the action is based upon”: (a) “a commercial activity carried on in the United States by” Argentina; or (b) “an act outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of [Argentina] elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the United States.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Magnus Electronics, Inc. v. Argentine Republic

3. “[T]he statute requires not only that the foreign sovereign conduct ‘commercial activity’ within the United States but also that the plaintiff’s cause of action must be ‘based upon’ such activity. In the normal use of language, that ‘based upon’ requirement has to be understood as denoting a proximate-cause relationship between the activities in the forum and the acts on which the cause of action is based, just as the term ‘but for’ is understood in law as importing a causal nexus rather than merely time-sequential relationship.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 705 F. Supp. 1392 - Kramer v. Boeing Co.