-
Case of the Day: Phoenix Process Equipment v. Capital Equipment & Trading
The case of the day is Phoenix Process Equipment Co. v. Capital Equipment & Trading Corp. (W.D. Ky. 2017). Phoenix was a Kentucky company that designs and manufactures water recycling equipment used to wash coal. Capital Equipment & Technology Corp., a Delaware corporation that used the trade name CETCO, was its distributor in Russia and……
-
Water Splash v. Menon: Two Briefs
The first two briefs are on file in Water Splash v. Menon, the Supreme Court case on the interpretation of Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention. First is the petitioner’s brief, of course, and there’s also an amicus brief from the United States in support of the petitioner’s view.
-
Water Splash v. Menon: The Question Presented Calls For Caution
In Water Splash v. Menon, the Supreme Court will resolve the longstanding circuit split about whether Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention allows service of process by mail. As I noted in my post on Multisports USA v. TheHut.com, there’s a difficulty in the way the question on cert. has been presented. The question,……
-
Case of the Day: Multisports USA v. TheHut.com
The case of the day is Multisports USA v. The Hut.com Ltd. (S.D. Fla. 2016). Multisports sued TheHut.com Ltd., a UK company, for tortious interference in business relationships. The claim was that The Hut.com had tortiously interfered in Multisports’ relationship with Compressport, for which it acted as exclusive US distributor of sports merchandise. Multisports attempted……
-
Water Splash v. Menon: Cert. Granted
On Friday, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari in Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, the case that squarely raises the question of how to interpret Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention. Does it permit service of process abroad by mail, or not?