Hey, look! A listicle! (Author’s note: this was originally just titled “Ten erroneous defense arguments…” but as I got deeper into the drafting, I realized that, while they’re all erroneous, several of them are downright stupid. There’s no diplomatic way to put that without losing effect.)
Picture this: a litigator in Notkansascity taps us on
Alright. Let’s do this One. More. Time.
Rule 4. Summons
(f) Serving an Individual* in a Foreign Country. Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual—other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed—may be served at a place not within any judicial district of the United States:
Several years ago, we started a series of jurisdiction-specific posts outlining the Hague Service Convention and options for serving in each place. How to Serve Process in Canada was first published for U.S. litigators in 2017 and has been periodically updated since– including some of my favorite travel pictures from north of the border.* That
Several years ago, we started a series of jurisdiction-specific posts outlining the Hague Service Convention and options for serving in each place. How to Serve Process in the Netherlands was first published in 2017 and has been periodically updated since– including some of my favorite travel pictures from my various adventures I’ve had ever since.
Several years ago, we started a series of jurisdiction-specific posts outlining the Hague Service Convention and options for serving in each place. How to Serve Process in England and Wales was first published in 2017 and has been periodically updated since– including some of my favorite travel pictures from my CLE adventures every other summer.
Several years ago, we started a series of jurisdiction-specific posts outlining the Hague Service Convention and options for serving in each place. How to Serve Process in France was first published in 2017 and has been periodically updated since– including some of my favorite travel pictures taken in the land I briefly called home for
To many colleagues in the IP community, the Kangol case issued by the Seventh Circuit last week, along with with its cousins, Smart Study (2d Cir. 2025) and Lahr (3d Cir. 2024), seems to slam the door shut on intellectual property owners who seek to assert their rights against various Chinese infringers. Dozens, hundreds, even
The unabashed Schedule A Crazy Train has come to a stop in Chicago thanks to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The court has finally said definitively that serving a Chinese defendant by email doesn’t fly except in certain circumstances. Sorry to mix transportation metaphors there.
The Third Circuit already reached that
The hits just keep on coming, y’all. I recently fielded a call from a lawyer in Notkansascity who needed help serving a defendant in Hong Kong. Or at least, he said, he needed help getting his summons and complaint translated into Mandarin– it seems his process server was already taking care of “that Hague thing.”
In six semesters of law school, including two of Civil Procedure, the only time I remember ever hearing a professor mention service of process was in Business Organizations class (known elsewhere and in earlier times as Corporations). That was it.
My BusOrg professor, known to frequent readers of this blog as Big Tony, was
