Archives

Case of the Day: MyECheck v. Titan

The case of the day is MyECheck, Inc. v. Titan International Securities, Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2016). MyECheck claimed that it was the victim of a securities fraud perpetrated by Titan and Sweetsun Intertrade, Inc., both located in Belize. MyECheck served process by having a Belizean lawyer serve the documents on the defendants’ registered agents. After they failed to answer, it sought a default judgment.
Continue reading Case of the Day: MyECheck v. Titan

Case of the Day: Allianz Sigorta v. Ameritech

The case of the day is Allianz Sigorta, A.S. v. Ameritech Industries, Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2016). Allianz was a Turkish insurance company. Ameritech, through a subsidiary, was in the business of servicing aircraft engines. Ameritech serviced the engine on a plane that was sold to Korfez Hartalcilik Planlama Ltd. STI, which was Allianz’s insured. The engine failed when the plain was being flown from the United States to Turkey, and the pilot ditched the plane off the east coast of Canada. Allianz (as Korfez’s subrogee) sued, claiming that the engine failed because of Ameritech’s bad service and that Allianz had negligently misrepresented that the plane was airworthy. The damaged plane and engine were in the possession of Air Labrador at facility in Goose Bay, Newfoundland. Korfez refused, for reasons that are a little obscure to me, had refused to give permission to Air Labrador for Allianz to conduct an inspection of the engine. Allianz therefore requested issuance of a letter rogatory.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Allianz Sigorta v. Ameritech

Case of the Day: Badyal v. Bosch Packaging Technology

The case of the day is Badyal v. Bosch Packaging Technology, Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2014). Kiranjeet Badyal, who worked at Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, alleged that she was injured by flying glass and steam when a Bosch autoclave exploded.She sued Bosch and SBM Bchoeller-Bleckmann Medizintechnik for negligence. In a separate action, Siemens and its insurer brought an action against Bosch, SBM, and others for negligence, breach of implied warranty, and strict liability. In its action, Siemens moved for issuance of a letter rogatory to the Austrian authorities to permit service of process on SBM, an Austrian firm. After SBM was served, the two actions were consolidated without objection from any party. But Badyal had not yet effected service on SBM.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Badyal v. Bosch Packaging Technology