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 Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. v. Bebidas Purificadas de Tehuacan, S.A. de C.V. (N.D. Tex. 2017). It’s another example that proves the point I’ve tried to make several times now about putting misplaced trust in “vendors” who claim to have the secret to the deeply mystical and problematic art of service of process abroad but who, in decision after decision, don’t seem to know what they’re doing. Today’s case is a trade dress infringement and unfair competition claim brought by an American soft drink company against a Mexican firm. It’s the kind of case where there could well be a need for as much speed as possible in serving process.