Case of the Day: In re Letter Rogatory from the Harju County Court

The case of the day is In re Letter Rogatory from the Harju County Court in Estonia (N.D. Cal. 2017). Lyoness Eesti OÜ brought a defamation action in the Harju County Court in Estonia, alleging that a blogger who controlled a blog on the WordPress.com blogging platform had published “incorrect factual allegations.” The Estonian court, apparently at the plaintiff’s urging, sent a letter of request to the United States, asking for judicial assistance in obtaining the name of the anonymous blogger from Automattic, the company that operates WordPress.com. The government then brought an ex parte § 1782 application in the Northern District of California.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: In re Letter Rogatory from the Harju County Court

The Supreme Court, Service of Process, and Legal History: Part 3 of a Letters Blogatory Polemic

This is the third and final post in my series on service of process and legal history. I encourage you to read the first and second posts!

Why am I writing about ancient methods of service of process, and Supreme Court references to them? Here is my basic idea. (more…)

Continue ReadingThe Supreme Court, Service of Process, and Legal History: Part 3 of a Letters Blogatory Polemic

Case of the Day: Phoenix Process Equipment Co. v. Capital Equipment & Trading

The case of the day is Phoenix Process Equipment Co. v. Capital Equipment & Trading Corp. (W.D. Ky. 2017). The decision was on a motion to reconsider the ruling we covered back in February. Here was my statement of the facts:
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Phoenix Process Equipment Co. v. Capital Equipment & Trading

Case of the Day: Kelly v. Vesnaver

The case of the day is Kelly v. Vesnaver (E.D.N.Y. 2017). The case involved a dispute about alleged conversion and breach of fiduciary duty relating to the plaintiff’s Chinese bonds. The plaintiff served process by delivering the documents to a PO box at a UPS Store in Florida. Several of the defendants were residents of the UK, and they moved to quash the service of process. The plaintiff claimed that one of the defendants (an American) had, in an email, authorized the plaintiff to serve process on all of the defendants at the UPS Store, though this was disputed.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Kelly v. Vesnaver

Case to Watch: Mohamad v. Rajoub

Jibril Rajoub giving a speech
Jibril Rajoub. Credit: David Lisbona

I’m keeping my eyes on an interesting new case filed in New York: Mohamad v. Rajoub. It raises lots of key Letters Blogatory issues. Here is the case according to the allegations of the complaint:

Asid Mohamad is the representative of the estate of Azzam Rahim. Rahim was a US citizen of Palestinian descent. He claims that in 1995, he was arrested in the West Bank by members of the Palestinian Preventive Security Force, taken to a prison in Jericho, tortured, and killed. The defendant is Jibril Rajoub, then the head of the PPSF in the West Bank and a high-ranking official in the Palestinian Authority, and today the head of the Palestinian Authority’s Olympic Committee. The plaintiffs allege that Rajoub, “as head of the PPSF … with official or apparent authority carried out or caused to be carried out acts of torture and extra-judicial killing pursuant to the general policy of the Palestinian Authority leadership.” The claims are for violation of the Torture Victim Protection Act, violations of customary international law, and torts including assault, battery, and false imprisonment, either under the law of New York or the law of the West Bank. According to news reports, Rahim was served with process as he stepped off a plane at JFK airport in New York last week.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase to Watch: Mohamad v. Rajoub

Case of the Day: Atlantic Specialty v. M2 Motor Yachts

The case of the day is Atlantic Specialty Insurance Co. v. M2 Motor Yachts (S.D. Fla. 2017). The action was an admiralty case arising out of a fire aboard a yacht, allegedly caused by a defective switch manufactured by one of the several Valeo companies. Two of the defendants were Valeo SA, a French company, and Valeo Switches Und Detection Systems, a German company.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Atlantic Specialty v. M2 Motor Yachts

The Supreme Court, Service of Process, and Legal History: Part 2 of a Letters Blogatory Polemic

Paul Revere
Happy Patriot’s Day! Letters Blogatory wishes all of the runners in today’s marathon good luck.

This is part two of my series on legal history and service of process. You should start by reading Part 1.

I could start the discussion of the Supreme Court’s cases with Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878), but I think it is better to start with International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), the first “modern” case on long-arm service, that is, service outside the territory of the state where the court sits. Here is how the Court put things:
(more…)

Continue ReadingThe Supreme Court, Service of Process, and Legal History: Part 2 of a Letters Blogatory Polemic

The Supreme Court, Service of Process, and Legal History: Part 1 of a Letters Blogatory Polemic

How was process served at common law in England? I’m not asking just for the heck of it: next week I hope to have a post that makes some points about the Supreme Court’s reliance on legal history in its explanations for the modern doctrines of service of process and personal jurisdiction. But first things first: how was process served?
(more…)

Continue ReadingThe Supreme Court, Service of Process, and Legal History: Part 1 of a Letters Blogatory Polemic

Case of the Day: Products & Ventures International v. Axus Stationery

The case of the day is Products & Ventures International v. Axus Stationery (Shanghai) Ltd. (N.D. Cal. 2017). The claim was for breach of contract and for tort in connection with a contract for distribution of wooden pencils. Four of the defendants, Shanghai Marco Stationery Co. Ltd., Axus Stationery (Shanghai) Ltd., Shanghai Laikesheng Pen Material Co. Ltd., and Peifeng (Brian) Xu, were in China. The plaintiff, Products & Ventures, made diligent efforts to effect service via the Chinese central authority under the Hague Service Convention, but after eleven months, it sought to serve the Chinese defendants via their US counsel, Hogan Lovells, under FRCP 4(f)(3).
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Products & Ventures International v. Axus Stationery