Comments on: Case of the Day: Midmark Corp. v. Janak Healthcare https://lettersblogatory.com/2014/06/03/case-day-midmark-corp-v-janak-healthcare/ The Blog of International Judicial Assistance Sun, 24 Nov 2024 15:33:44 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Case of the Day: SiOnyx v. Hamamatsu Photonics | Letters Blogatory https://lettersblogatory.com/2014/06/03/case-day-midmark-corp-v-janak-healthcare/#comment-22514 Mon, 18 Nov 2024 19:06:05 +0000 http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=18244#comment-22514 […] even preliminarily. I’ve addressed this issue several times before, perhaps most recently in a 2014 post; you can follow the links in that post back to prior […]

]]> By: Ted Folkman https://lettersblogatory.com/2014/06/03/case-day-midmark-corp-v-janak-healthcare/#comment-1918 Wed, 18 Jun 2014 15:32:32 +0000 http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=18244#comment-1918 In reply to Dan Donnellon.

Thanks, Dan, for the added information. The judge’s rationale is unfortunate: there is no right to be served via the Convention. As they say, the Convention is not mandatory.

]]> By: Dan Donnellon https://lettersblogatory.com/2014/06/03/case-day-midmark-corp-v-janak-healthcare/#comment-1917 Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:53:34 +0000 http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=18244#comment-1917 A good summary of the case. As trial lawyer for Midmark, I can tell you we certainly did seek alternative service under Rule 4(f). The Court denied that sua sponte, without prejudice, essentially because the Indian nationals were, as the judge put it, “resting on their right” to service under the Hague Convention. The motion was renewed within days due to a change in circumstance and service upon U.S. counsel and by email was authorized.

]]>