Tag Archives: translation

Case of the Day: Icon DE Holdings v. Eastside Distributors

Hague Service Convention, , ,

The case of the day is Icon DE Holdings LLC v. Eastside Distributors (S.D.N.Y. 2015). Icon sued Eastside and served process in Quebec. The precise manner of service was unclear. Icon claimed it proceeded via the Quebec central authority. But while I see an affidavit of service from the process server I don’t see an Article 6 certificate from the central authority. My assumption is that Icon properly sent a request for service to the central authority but that instead of sending back an Article 6 certificate the central authority sent the affidavit.

In any event, Icon served the documents in English but without a French translation. It obtained a default judgment. Eastside successfully moved to vacate the judgment on grounds of insufficient service of process. The case was again before the court on Icon’s motion for reconsideration.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Icon DE Holdings v. Eastside Distributors →

Case of the Day: Regenicin v. Lonza Walkersville, Inc.

Hague Service Convention, ,

The case of the Day is Regenicin, Inc. v. Lonza Walkersville, Inc., (N.D. Ga. 2014). Regenicin sued Lonza Walkersville for breach of contract, tortious interference, and other business torts. Regencin sought leave to effect service on one of the defendants, Lonza Group, Ltd., in Switzerland under the Hague Service Convention. You might say, “a plaintiff doesn’t need to seek leave to invoke the Convention,” and you would be right, but Regenicin’s motion was actually a bit more ambitious: Regenicin sought leave to serve the documents via the Convention, but without having to translate the exhibits, which were voluminous. Article 5 permits the central authority to require translations.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Regenicin v. Lonza Walkersville, Inc. →

Case of the Day: Harris v. NGK North American, Inc.

Hague Service Convention, , ,

Revised, with a discussion of the implications of the Volkswagen case.

The case of the day, Harris v. NGK North Am., Inc. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011), is one of a series of cases that has taken a position, one way or the other, on whether Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention permits service by mail or postal channels. I discussed the issue here. But today’s case has a twist: what happens when the defendant returns the mailing unopened? Can alternate means of service, approved by the US court, be an adequate substitute?

Harris lived within a few miles of a beryllium plant in Reading, Pennsylvania for decades, and he worked briefly in the plant. After he was diagnosed with chronic beryllium disease, Harris and his wife sued NGK Insulators, Ltd., the ultimate parent company of the plant’s owner, in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. After Harris died, the administrator of his estate was substituted as plaintiff, and the complaint was amended to included a wrongful death claim.

NGK Insulators was a Japanese firm with its place of business in Japan. Harris first attempted to serve NGK by registered mail, but the papers were returned, marked “refused.” A second attempt at service by mail, this time ordinary mail not requiring a signature, was also refused. Harris asked the court to permit alternative service, and the court permitted him to serve NGK Insulators by mailing a copy of the papers to an officer of NGK’s American subsidiary. Harris effected service as authorized by the court, but he did not include a Japanese translation of the papers. On appeal, NGK Insulators argued that the service was improper. The Superior Court rejected NGK’s argument.

Continue reading Case of the Day: Harris v. NGK North American, Inc. →