Comments on: Case of the Day: Products & Ventures International v. Axus Stationery

By: Ted Folkman

Ted Folkman — Thu, 13 Apr 2017 20:18:46 +0000

In reply to Aaron Lukken. To me this is a case where the precedents show good practical wisdom that the text of the rule may not. If you can't serve via the Convention for whatever reason, and if it's possible to construe the rule to permit service in the United States so as to avoid application of the Convention, and if the defendant has a US lawyer so as to obviate any due process concern, then I think the precedents are okay.

By: Aaron Lukken

Aaron Lukken — Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:28:28 +0000

In reply to Ted Folkman. I like the philosophical progression of that. Still, I'd love a test case to adopt the E.D. Mich. opinion to settle the matter. It shouldn't take verbal gymnastics to reach the same conclusion (ie: yes, serve U.S. counsel and you've fulfilled Mullane).

By: Service on a Foreign Defendant's U.S. Counsel | Hague Law Blog

Service on a Foreign Defendant's U.S. Counsel | Hague Law Blog — Thu, 13 Apr 2017 14:22:02 +0000

[…] Ted Folkman posted on a similar opinion out of the same district on April 13, 2017— the latest in a line of cases he’s explored over the years. As Ted points out in the […]

By: Ted Folkman

Ted Folkman — Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:23:57 +0000

In reply to Aaron Lukken. Thanks, Aaron! I think the great weight of precedent allowing such service probably means we need to look for ways to square the text of Rule 4(f) with the precedents, as suggested here.

By: Aaron Lukken

Aaron Lukken — Thu, 13 Apr 2017 10:40:14 +0000

My point exactly … Same district, different judge.