Teledyne, Inc., Teledyne Canada Limited, and Teledyne Cm Products, Inc. v. Kone Corporation, Outokumpu Oy and Rammer Oy, Finnish Corporations

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that Congress declined to provide simply for “separation of the claims against the foreign state from claims against other parties” and conclud-mg as such that Section 1441(d
• holding that the FSIA provides jurisdiction over pendent parties
• “This formulation is virtually indistinguishable from examples given by. the Supreme Court of language broad enough to create pendent party jurisdiction.”
• “At the very least, subsection 1441(d) expresses an intention to give sovereign foreign defendants an absolute right to a federal forum coupled with an unusually strong preference for the consolidation of claims.”
• “Under the FSIA, jurisdiction is extended over ‘action[s]’ against a foreign state, not simply over claims against a foreign state. This language is broad enough to cover the entire suit as brought by Teledyne since it was an action brought, in part, against a foreign state.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).