Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard

Van Cauwenberghe (defendant), a resident of Brussels, encouraged Biard (plaintiff), also a resident of Brussels, to meet with an American, Blair, about a potential real estate investment in the United States. Van Cauwenberghe and Blair convinced Biard to loan $1,000,000 to a real estate partnership for the renovation of townhomes in the United States. The loan was secured by a mortgage on the townhomes. The partnership failed to repay the loan, and the mortgage was determined to be invalid because the partnership never acquired title to the townhomes. Van Cauwenberghe was criminally charged, expedited to the United States, and subsequently convicted of wire fraud for his involvement in the scam. Biard filed a lawsuit against Van Cauwenberghe, Blair, and others. Van Cauwenberghe was served with the summons and complaint while at his probation officer’s office. Van Cauwenberghe filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that he was immune from civil process because he was only in the United States due to extradition and that the complaint should be dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Van Cauwenberghe appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the denial of a motion to dismiss based on immunity from civil process and forum non conveniens is an appealable order.