A slew of cases have come across my desk lately, involving plaintiff attorneys who have ostensibly already served foreign* defendants via statutory agents in the forum state. After plaintiff’s counsel spends several thousand dollars to defeat a motion to
I say all the time that we’re not building rockets here. But we are building a ship of sorts, and a leaky ship means lost cargo, and perhaps the inability to reach port. Serving process in the Republic of the
Last month, I posted that, yes, foreign authorities actually read translated documents— and if
I say all the time that we aren’t building rockets here. But we are building a ship of sorts, and if the vessel is leaky, we won’t make it to port and the captain will be
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
Hague Service Convention requests constitute 99% of my practice– that’s a literal statistic.* Easily half of them are sent to
One of the biggest fears my clients face is dismissal under a forum
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
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
One immutable truth looms over everything I do: if you can’t tell me where your defendant is, I can’t get him served
