Tag Archives: service by mail

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.

Case of the Day: Smith v. Wolf Performance Ammunition

The case of the day is Smith v. Wolf Performance Ammunition (D. Nev. 2015). Andrew Smith alleged that he was injured when, in 2012, “the firearm and ammunition he was using exploded in his face.” He sued Sporting Supplies International, apparently the merchant from whom he bought the allegedly defective ammunition. SSI impleaded Tula Cartridge Works, a Russian corporation, claiming Tula was liable to it for contribution and indemnification. SSI sought leave under FRCP 4(f)(3) to serve process by alternate means on Tula, noting Russia’s unilateral refusal to execute requests under the Hague Service Convention originating in the United States. In particular, SSI sought leave to serve process by mail and by email. Russia has objected to service under Article 10 of the Convention.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Smith v. Wolf Performance Ammunition