time may have some parallels in a different jurisdictional doctrine. 28 . See Kiobel, 569 U.S. at -, 133 S.Ct. at 1669 (noting that the presumption "guards against our courts triggering [the] serious foreign policy consequences” that could be raised if "other nations, also applying the law of nations, could hale our citizens into their courts for alleged violations of the law of nations occurring in the United States, or anywhere else in the world”); Al Shimon, 758 F.3d at 530 (concluding that the case did "not present any potential problems associated with bringing foreign nationals into United States courts to answer for conduct committed abroad, given that the defendants are United States citizens”); accord Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Lively, 960 F.Supp.2d 304, 322-24 (D.Mass.2013) (<HOLDING>). 29 . For further discussion of authorities
holding that certain claims could not be a class issue in part because the complaint did not mention the claims holding state buy american statute unconstitutional because it interfered with federal foreign affairs power emphasizing its effect on foreign commerce holding that kiobel did not bar ats claims against an american citizen in part because this is not a case where a foreign national is being hailed sic into an unfamiliar court to defend himself holding that coverage arguably existed under an insurance policy for claims against an employer and employees for an alleged assault and battery of bar patrons and that the insurer had a duty to defend holding nlra applied to state bank of indias activities in the united states because most employees are american citizens or american residents and the labor dispute centers on the wages to be paid american residents foreign or natural 