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
No, the U.S. court doesn’t get to appoint a process server overseas.
Sorry, court clerks—you don’t have the authority to review translations.
A new
Certified copies? Nope. Not needed.
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
Serve EVERYTHING that’s required.
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
Keeping Translation Costs Down, Part Three
Last month, I posted that, yes, foreign authorities actually read translated documents— and if
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