Letters Blogatory

The Blog of International Judicial Assistance | By Ted Folkman of Folkman LLC

Posts tagged “Vietnam

Case of the Day: DFSB Kollective v. Bing Yang

Posted on April 11, 2013

The case of the day is DFSB Kollective Co. v. Bing Yang (N.D. Cal. 2013). We reviewed a previous DFSB case in July 2012. As in the earlier case, the claim here was for copyright infringement. One of the defendants, Bin Yang, lived in Vietnam. The other, Indrawati Yang, lived in Indonesia. Neither country is a party to the Hague Service Convention. The court granted leave under FRCP 4(f)(3) to serve both defendant with process via email. In the circumstances of the case email was reasonably calculated to reach the defendants; indeed, given how they did business it seemed the only way to reach them. The case is pretty unremarkable, and I note it really just to make one point. Because neither Vietnam nor…

+Read more

Case of the Day: Cambria Co. v. Pental Granite & Marble, Inc.

Posted on April 9, 2013

The case of the day is Cambria Co. v. Pental Granite & Marble, Inc. (D. Minn. 2013). Cambria, a Minnesota company that designs, manufactures, and sells quartz surfacing products such as countertops, sued Vinaconex Advanced Compound Stone Joint Stock Co. for copyright infringement, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Vinaconex was a Vietnamese corporation that manufactured some of the products that Pental, the other defendant, sold. Vietnam is not a party to the Hague Service Convention. According to the return of service, Cambria served the summons and complaint on Vinaconex by personal service performed by Sim Mala, a process server, on Duong Trung, a security guard for Vinaconex, in Hanoi. There was no signed receipt. Cambria moved for entry of a default judgment when Vinaconex…

+Read more

Case of the Day: Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Bitton

Posted on January 25, 2012

In October 2011, we considered TracFone Wireless v. Doe (S.D. Fla. 2011), a decision I called “one of those rare cases that is so wrong that I hope it does not get into the F. Supp.2d, so as to avoid misleading lawyers.” The October decision authorized service of a subpoena by mail in Canada for purposes of discovering the identity of the defendant, who was sued as a John Doe. Yikes! Read the prior post for an explanation of why that can’t possibly be right. Today’s case of the day, Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Bitton (S.D. Fla. 2012), is a follow-on decision in the same case (with a different judge presiding). Unfortunately, the decision, while maybe not as wrongheaded as the first decision, is…

+Read more