CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd.
 | This article needs to be updated. (June 2025) |
| CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 3, 2025 Decided June 5, 2025 | |
| Full case name | 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 no. | 23-1201 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Decision | Opinion |
| Questions presented | |
| Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. | |
| Holding | |
| Plaintiffs suing a foreign state under the FSIA need not show “minimum contacts”; once an immunity exception applies and the state is properly served under 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b), personal jurisdiction is established. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Alito, joined by unanimous |
CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd., 605 U.S. ___ (2025), is a Supreme Court case holding that federal courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign state sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act as long as an immunity exception applies and the defendant has been properly served—without requiring the “minimum contacts” analysis of International Shoe Co. v. Washington. The Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remanded for further proceedings under this interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b).[1]
Background
[edit]Devas and Antrix are both Indian companies.[2] In 2005, they entered into an agreement, which was subject to an arbitration clause. In 2011, Antrix repudiated the agreement, triggering the arbitration provision.[2] In 2015, an arbitral commission awarded Devas $562.5 million. Until this point, the case had proceeded in tribunals outside of the United States.[2]
Civil procedure in the United States requires American courts to dismiss cases when they lack personal jurisdiction over the parties.[3][4] Under International Shoe Co. v. Washington, that requirement is understood to entail minimum contacts between the defendant[a] and the state in which the court is located.[3] 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.[5]
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.[2] The Ninth Circuit reversed on August 1, 2023.[2] The Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 4, 2024.[6]
Notes
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Stephan, Paul B. (2025-06-19). "Three Questions for the Ninth Circuit in Antrix". Transnational Litigation Blog. Retrieved 2025-06-24.
- ^ a b c d e "Appendix" (PDF). Retrieved October 9, 2024.
- ^ a b c Gardner, Maggie (2022). "The False Promise of General Jurisdiction". Alabama Law Review. 73 (3): 455–482 – via HeinOnline.
- ^ Lahav, Alexandra (2022). "The New Privity in Personal Jurisdiction". Alabama Law Review. 73 (3): 540–582 – via HeinOnline.
- ^ "28 U.S. Code § 1608 - Service; time to answer; default". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2024-10-11.
- ^ "CC/Devas (Mauritius) Limited v. Antrix Corp. Ltd". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 2024-10-08.