Comments on: Water Splash v. Menon: The Question Presented Calls For Caution https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/12/28/water-splash-v-menon-the-question-presented-calls-for-caution/ The Blog of International Judicial Assistance Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:45:50 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Water Splash: The Denouement | Letters Blogatory | Letters Blogatory https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/12/28/water-splash-v-menon-the-question-presented-calls-for-caution/#comment-2778 Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:45:50 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=23981#comment-2778 […] for Letters Blogatory readers, but it wasn’t the end of the story for the litigants. As I had hoped, the Court was careful in its decision to note that Article 10 permits, but does not itself […]

]]> By: Case of the Day: United States ex rel. Bunk v. Gosselin Worldwide Moving | Letters Blogatory https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/12/28/water-splash-v-menon-the-question-presented-calls-for-caution/#comment-2777 Wed, 12 Apr 2017 10:01:01 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=23981#comment-2777 […] must be effected by a marshal or deputy marshal, and it does not provide for service by mail. Since we know that Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention permits but does not authorize service by mail, […]

]]> By: Water Splash v. Menon: Two Briefs | Letters Blogatory https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/12/28/water-splash-v-menon-the-question-presented-calls-for-caution/#comment-2776 Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:21:19 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=23981#comment-2776 […] see that the government’s brief addressed the question, not really presented in the case but lurking in the way the petition for cert. was phrased, about whether Article 10(a) authorizes service by […]

]]> By: Ted Folkman https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/12/28/water-splash-v-menon-the-question-presented-calls-for-caution/#comment-2775 Wed, 28 Dec 2016 16:59:27 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=23981#comment-2775 In reply to Joey M..

Apologies if I’ve been confusing! See my response to Darren’s comment.

]]> By: Ted Folkman https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/12/28/water-splash-v-menon-the-question-presented-calls-for-caution/#comment-2774 Wed, 28 Dec 2016 16:58:36 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=23981#comment-2774 In reply to Darren Vasaturo.

No, the point on which the courts are split is whether Article 10(a) allows service of process by mail, or whether it only allows service of other judicial documents, not including the summons, by mail. This is the main circuit split, and the one that was briefed.

There is another split, which asks, assuming that Article 10(a) does allow service of process by mail, whether Article 10(a) affirmatively authorizes service by mail (in which case you can use FRCP 4(f)(1)) or whether it merely permits it (in which case you have to use FRCP 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) or FRCP 4(f)(3)).

]]> By: Joey M. https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/12/28/water-splash-v-menon-the-question-presented-calls-for-caution/#comment-2773 Wed, 28 Dec 2016 16:46:03 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=23981#comment-2773 In reply to Darren Vasaturo.

Yes, I share Darren’s confusion. It seems the question you don’t want reached is exactly what’s been presented. Even if you substitute out the dreaded “authorize,” the question presented still doesn’t distinguish between Article 10(a)’s applicability to service of documents versus summonses and other processes, as I believe you’ve suggested is the true issue. What are we missing? Thanks in advance

]]> By: Darren Vasaturo https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/12/28/water-splash-v-menon-the-question-presented-calls-for-caution/#comment-2772 Wed, 28 Dec 2016 16:03:48 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=23981#comment-2772 If that is the wording in the petition that the Court accepted, why would they not address the question thus put?
Is that not the main point on which the Circuit Courts are split?

]]>