The case of the day is Lexmark International, Inc. v. Ink Technologies Printer Supplies, LLC (S.D. Ohio 2013). The plaintiff sought leave to serve defendants in China and Germany via email. The judge noted that both China and Germany are parties to the Hague Service Convention. The judge granted the motion. He did not analyze the Convention in any detail, beyond noting that “Email service has been approved even where, as here, the country objects to Article 10 of the Hague Convention.” And for that proposition, he cited the two worst cases ever, Gurung v. Malhotra and FTC v. PCCare247. I mean, really!

It seems to me that one problem with a decision like this—beyond being flat-out wrong—is that it is decided on an ex parte basis, without any opposition. That’s not to excuse the sloppiness of judges who don’t stop to ask themselves what provision of the Convention authorizes the method of service they are so liberally permitting. But it’s understandable that a judge would follow a case such as Gurung when no one is there to explain why Gurung was obviously wrongly decided.

I want to end all of my posts from now on as follows: “Furthermore, it is my opinion that Gurung v. Malhotra must be repudiated.”