<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Case of the Day: Two Moms And A Toy v. International Playthings	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2012/10/03/two-moms-and-a-toy-v-international-playthings/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2012/10/03/two-moms-and-a-toy-v-international-playthings/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2024 02:54:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Ted Folkman		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2012/10/03/two-moms-and-a-toy-v-international-playthings/#comment-791</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ted Folkman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:41:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=10856#comment-791</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[On October 29, the court, sua sponte, &lt;a href=&quot;http://lettersblogatory.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Two-moms.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow ugc&quot;&gt;dismissed&lt;/a&gt; the action as to Golub Weisman and another defendant without prejudice for failure to effect service of process. The judge noted that the plaintiff had had two years to make service and had not explained its failure to do so. It seems to me that this was needless. The plaintiff should have tried to make use of the central authority mechanism at the outset of the case, and if that method proved ineffective (for example, if Golub Weisman&#039;s address was unknown), the plaintiff should have sought leave to make service by alternate means under Rule 4(f)(3).]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On October 29, the court, sua sponte, <a href="http://lettersblogatory.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Two-moms.pdf" rel="nofollow ugc">dismissed</a> the action as to Golub Weisman and another defendant without prejudice for failure to effect service of process. The judge noted that the plaintiff had had two years to make service and had not explained its failure to do so. It seems to me that this was needless. The plaintiff should have tried to make use of the central authority mechanism at the outset of the case, and if that method proved ineffective (for example, if Golub Weisman&#8217;s address was unknown), the plaintiff should have sought leave to make service by alternate means under Rule 4(f)(3).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
