I’m happy to welcome a new guest-poster and fellow blogger, Nathan Park of Kobre Kim, who brings us a short discussion of Cunningham v. Cunningham (M.D. Fla. 2017). Welcome, Nathan!
This case follows a proceeding in which plaintiff ex-wife sued the defendants ex-husband and his current wife, in order to secure return of the child between ex-wife and ex-husband from U.S. to Japan, back to ex-wife’s custody. The court previously ordered the child to be returned to the ex-wife pursuant to Hague Convention on Child Abduction. On the day the ex-wife was supposed to be on the flight back to Japan with a child, the defendants filed the motion to stay the order.
The court denied the stay motion, noting that the ex-wife and the child likely left the United States already. Further, the court found the stay motion to be an attempt to re-litigate the previous proceeding.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Cunningham v. Cunningham
The case of the day is Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Konami Digital Entertainment Inc. (D. Del. 2016). The case was a patent infringement action against Konami, the developer of the Dance Dance Revolution video game . Princeton sought an order requiring Konami, the US subsidiary of Konami Holdings Corp., to produce documents in the possession of its sister subsidiary, Konami Japan, on the theory that the documents were within the US subsidiary’s control. (The ordinary test for what is discoverable, under FRCP 34, is that the documents must be in the responding party’s “possession, custody, or control”).
Continue reading Case of the Day: Princeton Digital Image v. Konami Digital Entertainment
The case of the day is SiOnyx LLC v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. (D. Mass. 2016). SiOnyx and the President and Fellows of Harvard College brought an action against Hamamatsu Photonics, a Japanese corporation, and its American subsidiary, Hamamatsu Corp., and others. The plaintiffs effected service on Hamamatsu Corp., but they conceded that they had not directly effected service on Hamamatsu Photonics. Instead, they asserted that service on the subsidiary was effective as service on the parent, because the subsidiary was the parent’s “managing or general agent,” and thus the service was effective under Mass. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). It’s unclear to me, by the way, why the parties focused on Mass. R. Civ. P. 4 instead of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(B), which also has a managing or general agent provision. The Massachusetts rule is incorporated by reference into the federal only if the service is to be made in the United States; but if the service is to be made in the United States, why not rely instead, or in addition, in the federal rule for domestic service? Perhaps there is some difference in how the federal cases and the Massachusetts cases define a managing or general agent, but if so, I don’t know offhand what it is. In any event, the plaintiffs also sought a preliminary injunction against the Japanese defendant.
Continue reading Case of the Day: SiOnyx v. Hamamatsu Photonics