The case of the day is Merial v. Ceva Santé Animale, S.A. (M.D. Ga. 2016). Merial sued Ceva, a French firm. It attempted to serve process by hiring a private process server to serve Herve Balmes, alleged to be a member of Ceva’s executive committee, in Libourne, France, and by registered mail to Marc Prikazsky, the CEO, again in Libourne. Ceva moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Merial v. Ceva Santé Animale
The case of the Day is Regenicin, Inc. v. Lonza Walkersville, Inc., (N.D. Ga. 2014). Regenicin sued Lonza Walkersville for breach of contract, tortious interference, and other business torts. Regencin sought leave to effect service on one of the defendants, Lonza Group, Ltd., in Switzerland under the Hague Service Convention. You might say, “a plaintiff doesn’t need to seek leave to invoke the Convention,” and you would be right, but Regenicin’s motion was actually a bit more ambitious: Regenicin sought leave to serve the documents via the Convention, but without having to translate the exhibits, which were voluminous. Article 5 permits the central authority to require translations.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Regenicin v. Lonza Walkersville, Inc.
The case of the day is In re Mak (N.D. Cal. 2012). Michael Erik A.B. Mak Shun Ming Hotung was married to Chan Wei Guang. The two were in the midst of divorce proceedings in the Hong Kong courts. According to Mak, George J. Grover, a resident of California, gave an affidavit submitted to the Hong Kong court averring that Mak owned a car collection worth more than $50 million. Mak brought an ex parte application for issuance of a subpoena to Grover under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 seeking to discover the factual basis for Grover’s affidavit.
The judge properly granted the application. She first found that the statutory requirements were met: Grover was “found” in California; Mak was an “interested person” entitled to bring an application; and the divorce case was a proceeding before a foreign tribunal. She went on to a quick review of the Intel factors, deciding, in her discretion, to order issuance of the subpoena because (1) Grover was not a party to the Hong Kong case; (2) there wsa no evidence Mak was seeking to evade foreign discovery limitations; (3) the Hong Kong court would presumably be receptive to the evidence; and (4) there was no undue burden, as Grover has voluntarily submitted the affidavit. Point (4) seemed particularly persuasive to the judge, and it is a good reminder that if you submit an affidavit in a court proceeding you can fairly expect to have to face questions about it.