Tag Archives: Hague Evidence Convention

Let’s Help Improve The Hague Evidence and Service Conventions!

The International Litigation Committee of the ABA is assisting the State Department in soliciting comments from practitioners on the operation of the Hague Service and Evidence Conventions. The comments will be used by the State Department in identifying issues to raise during the upcoming meeting of the Special Commission on the Practical Operation of the Service, Evidence and Access to Justice Conventions, which takes place in May. With the permission of the ABA committee, I am reprinting the questionnaire here. If you have made use of either of the Conventions since 2009 and would like to participate, please send me your answers, and I will pass them along to the ABA. Answers are due to the ABA by March 14, so please get them to me by March 13.
Continue reading

Case of the Day: AQ Asset Management v. Levine

In the case of the day, AQ Asset Management LLC v. Levine (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014), a Swiss national who had sued US defendants in the New York state courts found that he could not avoid the reach of a New York subpoena in a related case brought by the same US parties. In 2008, Markus Schumacher, the Swiss national, sued the City of New York, Paul Ware Jr., William C. Clifford, Antiquorum USA, Inc., and Evan Zimmerman in the New York Supreme Court. Schumacher’s claims are not made clear in today’s decision: they “arose from an August 2007 incident that took place at the offices of Antiquorum USA, where Schumacher had served as the chief operating officer for plaintiff Antiquorum S.A.” Two of the defendants in the 2008 lawsuit, Antiquorum and Zimmerman then sued Michale Levine, Habsburg Holdings Ltd., and Osvaldo Patrizzi, also in New York. The second suit was related to the first, though the decision doesn’t explain exactly how.
Continue reading

Case of the Day: Cascade Yarns v. Knitting Fever

The case of the day is Cascade Yarns, Inc. v. Knitting Fever, Inc. (W.D. Wash. 2014). The claim in the case was for mislabeling of Knitting Fever’s yarns as to country of origin. Cascade wanted to take document discovery and depositions of the distributors of the accused yarn in Italy and Spain. Both Italy and Spain are parties to the Hague Evidence Convention, and both have made Article 23 declarations.
Continue reading