Archives

Case of the Day: Bevilacqua v. US Bank

The case of the day is Bevilacqua v. US Bank, NA (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016). US Bank brought a foreclosure action against a mortgagor, Renato Bevilacqua. The return of service indicated that Bevilacqua was personally served in Miami, Florida. US Bank obtained a default judgment, but Bevilacqua then moved to set aside the judgment, stating that he lived in Italy, had never been served with process, and had had no notice of the action. The court set aside the judgment. The bank then sought to serve process on Bevilacqua via the central authority under the Hague Service Convention.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Bevilacqua v. US Bank

Case of the Day: PATS Aircraft,v. Vedder Munich

Boeing 737

The case of the day is PATS Aircraft, LLC v. Vedder Munich GmbH (D. Del. 2016). PATS had a contract with a customer for modification of a Boeing 737 jet. PATS subcontracted the interior work to Vedder’s predecessor in interest, Loher Raumexklusiv GmbH. The parties ended up in a contract dispute. Vedder brought a declaratory judgment action in Germany, while PATS brought an action for breach of contract and breach of warranty in Delaware. Vedder moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process.
Continue reading Case of the Day: PATS Aircraft,v. Vedder Munich

Case of the Day: Grupo Famsa v. District Court

The case of the day is Grupo Famsa, S.A. de C.V. v. Eight Judicial District Court (Nev. 2016). B.E. Uno LLC was the owner of a shopping center in Las Vegas. Famsa, Inc. entered into a lease with Uno for commercial retail space. Grupo Fama guaranteed Famsa’s obligations under the lease. Uno sued Famsa and Grupo Famsa, alleging that Famsa had breached the lease. Uno served process on Grupo Fama in Mexico via the Mexican central authority. It’s not clear from the opinion how Uno requested the central authority to effect service, but I will assume that the request was for service in accordance with Mexican law rather than by a special method or by remise simple. The central authority served the documents on a person who, according to the Article 6 certificate, was “an employee in [Grupo’s] legal department.” Grupo Famsa moved to quash the service, asserting that the employee was in fact just a hostess who greeted people who came into its store. The trial court denied the motion to quash, and Grupo Famsa sought review.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Grupo Famsa v. District Court