The case of the day is Wright v. Old Gringo Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2018). The plaintiff wanted to serve process on the defendant in Mexico and brought a motion to appoint a particular “vendor” as “international process server.” “Plaintiff has diligently explored all service options,” the plaintiff’s motion intoned, “and determined that the only manner in which [Defendant] may be served in a valid manner is via extra-territorial service via the [Hague Convention].”
The case of the day is Carmona v. Carmona (In re Carmona) (Bankr. S.D. Texas. 2018)>. Maria Rosales was married to Hector Carmona. In 1991, the wife sold a parcel of land in Guanajuato, Mexico without her husband’s consent. (Mexico is a community property jurisdiction, as are Texas and several other southwestern states once ruled by Spain). In 2012, the wife sought a divorce in Webb County, Texas. In the divorce case, the husband asserted that the wife had transferred the Mexican land without his consent. The parties entered a settlement agreement that purported to resolve “all claims and controversies” in the action, but that did not mention the Mexican property specifically. The case ended with a divorce decree requiring the husband to pay…
Tagged: Mexico, Recognition and Enforcement
The case of the day is Vitro Packaging de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. v. Dubiel (Tex. App. 2017). John Dubiel Jr. sued Vitro Mexico, alleging that he was "injured in a grocery store when soft drink bottles exploded and glass shards hit his eye." He served process in Vitro, a Mexican firm, by serving the summons on Kevin Jackson, alleged to be Vitro's registered agent, in Plano, Texas. Vitro filed a special appearance to argue that it was not subject to the court's jurisdiction. It argued that the service was not in accordance with the Hague Service Convention, and that the Convention "preempted Texas laws and rules and provided the exclusive means for service of process." It's not the main point of this post,…
Tagged: Hague Service Convention, Mexico