A while back, I wrote that removing the self-expiration language in a standard bankruptcy summons is imperative when serving overseas defendants in adversary proceedings. I’ve used that post on several occasions to advise litigators in various state
In the Western District of Texas– Waco, specifically– patent litigation has exploded as a result of the efforts of a single jurist: Hon. Alan D. Albright. Judge Albright’s ever-expanding docket is controversial, even drawing bipartisan ire from the Senate Judiciary
Seriously. It doesn’t exist.
At least, not in the common law world. Sure, in civil law jurisdictions it might, depending on your definition of informality, but in those places, “informal” is a term of art, and it relies entirely on the defendant’s willingness to play
[Details have been changed to protect the innocent. Some variant of this story happens routinely— at least every couple of months.]
A few weeks ago, I received a Hague Certificate following a request that I’d sent on a client’s behalf to a foreign Central
Y’all, if you know you’re going to be removed, just initiate the case in federal court to begin with. It’ll save everybody involved a whole bunch of time and headache.
A routine question from clients across the continent– especially those in my own state*: “Hey, Aaron, the clerk says I have to tell the court
A new
Client queries: “hey, Aaron, the clerk says the Hague Service Convention requires certified copies of the Summons and Complaint and something called an Apostille. Where do I get that?”
I get some variant
Last month, in Only serve what is REQUIRED, I suggested insisted that service costs can go through the roof if plaintiff’s counsel seeks to serve documents that aren’t strictly mandated by local rule.*
Routine practice dictates that, along with the Summons and Complaint, additional documents must be served as well. ECF Rules, civil cover
Last month, I posted that, yes, foreign authorities actually read translated documents— and if
