-
Case of the Day: 3M Co. v. Christian Investments LLC
The case of the day, 3M Co. v. Christian Investments LLC (E.D. Va. 2011), poses the question whether a foreign defendant who has not yet been served by process can be bound by a preliminary injunction. 3M, the multinational company headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, owns the “3M” trademark and has registered many domain names……
-
Case of the Day: Fish & Richardson PC v. Camtek Ltd.
We have frequently noted the that a foreign central authority’s certificate under Article 6 of the Hague Service Convention is prima facie evidence of service of process. In the discussion of Zions First Nat’l Bank v. Moto Diesel Mexicana, the case of the day from July 21, 2011, the Mexican defendant had been served with……
-
Case of the Day: Foster v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc.
The case of the day, Foster v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc. (S.D. Ala. 2011), is a service of process dispute involving a Japanese defendant. Foster sued Mazda Motor Corp. and others for wrongful death after her husband was killed in an auto accident. Her claim was that the accident was caused “by catastrophic failure and tread……
-
Case of the Day: Tang v. CS Clean Systems AG
In the case of the day Po-Hi Tang v. CS Clean Systems AG (S.D. Cal. 2011), the plaintiff transmitted a summons and complaint to the German central authority for service. When trouble arose, the court authorized service of process by alternate means, namely, on a US lawyer who had previously represented the defendant is US……
-
Advice from the Trenches on Service of Process in Mexico
Nelson Tucker, of Process Service Network, commented that there were some new hitches in serving process in Mexico under the Hague Service Convention. Intrigued, I checked out his blog, where he writes that the Mexican Central Authority is now imposing the following requirements: The summons must state that the defendant has 21 calendar days to……