Comments on: Case of the Day: Moskovitz v. La Suisse https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/12/13/case-day-moskovitz-v-la-suisse/ The Blog of International Judicial Assistance Mon, 25 Nov 2024 01:52:13 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Case of the Day: BBK Tobacco & Foods v. Juicy eJuice | Letters Blogatory https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/12/13/case-day-moskovitz-v-la-suisse/#comment-22792 Sun, 24 Nov 2024 15:35:09 +0000 http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=17163#comment-22792 […] argument is the same as the argument I noted in my posts on Barriere v. Cap Juluca and Moskovitz v. La Suisse. Article 10(c) provides: “Provided the State of destination does not object, the present […]

]]> By: Case of the Day: Barriere v. Cap Juluca | Letters Blogatory https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/12/13/case-day-moskovitz-v-la-suisse/#comment-1628 Wed, 08 Oct 2014 13:43:07 +0000 http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=17163#comment-1628 […] would have no hesitation in calling this case correctly decided, except that, as I noted in my post on Moskovitz v. La Suisse, there’s a pretty good argument that service by mail under the Convention is proper only with […]

]]> By: Case of the Day: Barriere v. Cap Juluca | Letters Blogatory https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/12/13/case-day-moskovitz-v-la-suisse/#comment-1627 Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:00:10 +0000 http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=17163#comment-1627 […] I would have no hesitation in calling this case correctly decided, except that, as I noted in my post on Moskovitz v. La Suisse, there’s a pretty good argument that service b… […]

]]> By: Ted Folkman https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/12/13/case-day-moskovitz-v-la-suisse/#comment-1626 Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:27:00 +0000 http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=17163#comment-1626 In reply to Richard Gross.

I agree, and thank you for the comment. My point, though, was that Caruso should consider a FRCP 60 motion if he thinks his assets abroad are at risk already. If as you suggest, the courts that could get their hands on his assets won’t recognize the US default judgment, then it makes sense for Caruso to do nothing, both for the reason I gave (the FRCP 4(f)(3) issue) and the reason you gave.

]]> By: Richard Gross https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/12/13/case-day-moskovitz-v-la-suisse/#comment-1625 Wed, 12 Feb 2014 17:31:02 +0000 http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=17163#comment-1625 But if so, what does Caruso have to lose?

What can Caruso possibly gain from making a motion for relief from the judgment under FRCP 60(b)(4)?
“…what does Caruso have to lose?”
In doing so they would be submitting to US Court, and Liechtenstein may execute the judgement. But as long as Caruso has not appeared and not submitted, Liechtenstein will not enforce. Plaintiff Swiss Life would first need a trial in Liechtenstein to determin if US courts had jurisdiction on Caruso.

]]>