The case of the day is Packard v. City of New York (S.D.N.Y. 2018). Charles Meacham sued New York City on behalf of a class, asserting civil rights claims arising out of his arrest in September 2012 during the Occupy Wall Street protests. At the time, he lived in New York, but now he lives in Taiwan. The City sought to take his deposition in New York, but Meacham wanted the deposition to be taken by videoconference in Taiwan. The parties filed cross-motions.
Tagged: consular deposition, Taiwan
The case of the day is Blue Spike, LLC v. ASUS Computer International, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2018). Blue Spike brought a patent infringement action against ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., a Taiwanese company. Blue Spike served process “C/O ASUS Computer International via ASUS’s registered agent, CT Corporation System in Dallas, Texas.” ASUS was AUSTeK’s US subsidiary. When AUSTeK did not answer, Blue Spike sought a default judgment. AUSTeK then moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process.
Tagged: Taiwan
The case of the day is Lin v. United States (D.D.C. 2016). The plaintiffs were residents of Taiwan. Their claim was that in 1946, the government of the Republic of China—that is, the nationalist government that the United States, at the time, recognized as the government of China—issued decrees that had the effect of depriving people living in Taiwan of their Japanese nationality. They sued the Republic of China as well as the United States. The claim against the United States was that in 1946, the ROC government was the agent of the United States, making the United States vicariously liable. No one could accuse the plaintiff’s lawyer of lacking courage.