Tag Archives: service by mail

Case of the Day: Menon v. Water Splash

The case of the day is Menon v. Water Splash, Inc. (Tex. Ct. App. 2015). Water Splash, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, sued Tara Menon, a Canadian national residing in Quebec, in a Texas court. The claim was that Menon had been Water Splash’s regional sales representative and that she had also gone to work for a competitor, South Pool, and had used Water Splash’s designs and drawings when submitting a bid to the city of Galveston, Texas on behalf of South Pool. Water Splash had sought and obtained leave to serve process on Menon by mail and email. After service of process, the case ended in a default judgment. Menon moved to set aside the judgment on the grounds that service was insufficient. The trial court denied her motion, and she appealed.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Menon v. Water Splash

Case of the Day: Larson v. Yoon

The case of the day is Larson v. Yoon (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). Keith and Cynthia Larson sued Kyungsik Yoon after an auto collision in King County, Washington. The Larsons lived there; Yoon was a resident of South Korea. The Larsons sued and sought to serve Yoon with process by service on the Washington secretary of state, as provided by Washington statutes. The secretary of state then mailed the documents to Yoon, again as provided by statute. Yoon sought summary judgment on the grounds that he had not been properly been served. The court denied the motion, and Yoon took an interlocutory appeal.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Larson v. Yoon

Case of the Day: In re Interest of E.H.

The case of the day is In re Interest of E.H. (Tex. Ct. App. 2014). Sara and Shlomo Hamo were married in Israel in the 1980s. In 1992, Shlomo left the family and moved to the United States—first to South Carolina and then to Texas. In 1993, Sara obtained a child support order in Israel. Sara later obtained a divorce under Jewish law in Texas (it is unclear whether the parties were ever divorced under civil law). In 2011, Sara, through the Texas Attorney General, sought registration of the Israeli child support order under the Uniform Interstate Foreign Support Act. Shlomo opposed registration, asserting that he had not been served with process in the Israeli proceeding (Sara asserted that she had served him via registered mail, as provided by Israeli law). Shlomo testified that he had been unaware of the child support order until 2011. The trial court denied registration, finding that Shlomo had not been served with process and that he had been denied due process of law in the Israeli proceeding. Sara appealed.
Continue reading Case of the Day: In re Interest of E.H.