Comments on: Case of the Day: State Farm v. Amazon https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/05/22/case-of-the-day-state-farm-v-amazon-2/ The Blog of International Judicial Assistance Sat, 16 Nov 2024 20:26:59 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 By: Removal and the Timing of Hague Service Convention Requests, Real World | Hague Law Blog https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/05/22/case-of-the-day-state-farm-v-amazon-2/#comment-3094 Mon, 17 May 2021 14:57:42 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=26829#comment-3094 […] we’re not always of the same mind, he’s been to the wars far longer than I have.  His May 22 entry  caught my attention in particular because the order he highlighted almost dismissed a Korean […]

]]> By: Ted Folkman https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/05/22/case-of-the-day-state-farm-v-amazon-2/#comment-3093 Tue, 22 May 2018 23:39:43 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=26829#comment-3093 In reply to Aaron Lukken.

Hard to know what the “vendor” knew, but you may be right. The broader point is: serving process is not like photocopying or e-discovery management—the lawyer has a responsibility to understand the legal issues and shouldn’t rely on others.

]]> By: Aaron Lukken https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/05/22/case-of-the-day-state-farm-v-amazon-2/#comment-3092 Tue, 22 May 2018 14:20:58 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=26829#comment-3092 In this particular case, the “vendor” was ABC Legal, the designated outsourcing agent for the DOJ in its capacity as Central Authority. As such… not just any vendor (ie: they know what they’re doing).

The error here was completely on counsel’s part. Removal was in June, and ABC’s Hague request was submitted to the Koreans in September. Odds are, nobody told ABC that it had been removed, and it’s not ABC’s job to ascertain.

]]>