Last month, I posted that, yes, foreign authorities actually read translated documents— and if
Keeping Translation Costs Down, Part Three
Guess what– you still can’t serve via a subsidiary (unless…)
Way back in March, 2017, I posted a blurb about the limitations on serving offshore parent companies via their U.S. subsidiaries. In short, I argue, you can’t simply serve a U.S. subsidiary and call it effective on the foreign parent. You have to have a compelling reason to pierce the corporate veil.
This is basic
Yeah, buddy, they do check translations.
Hague Service Convention requests constitute 99% of my practice– that’s a literal statistic.* Easily half of them are sent to
N.D. Cal. gets it right!
Ah… faith in humanity restored. Just a bit.
In a rant yesterday (NO, 4(f)(3) is NOT co-equal to Hague channels!), I took issue with the impossibly bad logic in another order approving electronic service on a Chinese
NO, 4(f)(3) is NOT co-equal to Hague channels!
Yet another one popped up on the old radar (Google news alerts) yesterday… a National Law Review article highlighted Victaulic Company v. Allied Rubber & Gasket Co., Inc. in S.D. Cal., but the author’s conclusion was far too optimistic for plaintiffs seeking a
Service on U.S. counsel doesn’t arise from Rule 4(f)(3)
Every once in a while, when a colleague is stymied by limitations to serving an offshore defendant, the thought comes to mind that “hey, I might try to get leave of court to serve the defendant’s U.S. counsel.” It’s a great idea, and if the judge signs off on it, I don’t see how it
No, Water Splash isn’t a gift to litigators.
In a single day last week, Week Ten of America’s Covid-19 quarantine, I fielded essentially the same oddly segmented inquiry from three different lawyers across the country. A rather disconcerting inquiry, to say the least.
“Hey, Aaron. I’ve got an overseas defendant to serve. I’ve talked to some process servers who tell me that you
A solemn– not “happy”– occasion.
My inbox is oddly flooded this morning. Not with the usual client inquiries (it’s a holiday, after all), but with the normal spate of promotional emails and law firm newsletters I’ve come to expect on most statutory days off. Sure, we’ve commercialized the heck
Wrong reasoning, right result?
The question mark in that headline only applies to half of the headline.
The result might be correct, depending on facts not articulated in the order, but the logic behind N.D. Ohio’s
They really don’t know what they’re talking about.
Yet another rant here about advice from purported experts on service of process abroad. The usual tidbits have been making the rounds of late, according to clients who’ve called me.
As with many areas of the law, things usually aren’t as simple as they seem. Sure,