Case of the Day: Bulmer v. Nissan Motor Co.

The case of the day is Bulmer v. Nissan Motor Co., 2017 SKCA 19 (Sask. Ct. App. 2017). Friend of the Blog Alejandro Manevich brought it to my attention. Darin Bulmer brought a purported class action against Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., the Japanese automaker, in the Court of Queen’s Bench in Regina, Saskatchewan. He served process on Nissan “by way of having a commercial courier deliver a copy of the statement of claim in Japan.” He then sought appointment of a judge to manage the class action. The trial court denied the motion because Nissan had not been properly served. Bulmer appealed.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Bulmer v. Nissan Motor Co.

Case of the Day: National Casualty Co. v. Western Express

The case of the day is National Casualty Co. v. Western Express, Inc. (W.D. Okla. 2017). National Casualty sued Victoria Cardenas, a resident of Mexico. The court granted leave to serve process on Cardenas by email to her US counsel. Cardenas moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process, arguing that under the Hague Service Convention service by email was improper, particularly because Mexico had objected to service by mail under Article 10(a) of the Convention.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: National Casualty Co. v. Western Express

Case of the Day: Water Splash v. Menon

The case of the day is Water Splash v. Menon (S. Ct. 2017). The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, put to rest the circuit split about whether Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention permits service of process by mail. Happily, the state and federal courts in the United States are all now on the same page with the Special Commission of the Hague Conference, the US State Department, most if not all foreign courts, and more or less all writers on the subject: Article 10(a) does indeed permit service by mail.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Water Splash v. Menon

Canon Financial Services v. Permanent Mission of Madagascar

The case of the day is Canon Financial Services, Inc. v. Permanent Mission of Madagascar (S.D.N.Y. 2017). The opinion doesn’t explain what the case is about, though we could take a guess from the title. In any event, Canon sued Magadascar’s mission to the United Nations in New York state court more than five years ago. Madagascar eventually removed the case to the District Court (under the FSIA foreign states have the power of removal). Canon argued that the removal was untimely and sought a remand.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCanon Financial Services v. Permanent Mission of Madagascar

Case of the Day: Amirit Technologies v. HTN Wireless

The case of the day is Amirit Technologies, Inc. v. HTN Wireless, Inc. (D.N.J. 2017). Amirit, a New Jersey telecommunications firm, sued HTN and one of Amirit’s former employees, Syed Muneeb Arshad. Amirit sought to serve process on Arshad in Connecticut unsuccessfully. HTN’s counsel told Amirit that Arshad was living in Pakistan. His address, though, was unknown. Amirit sought leave to serve process by email under FRCP 4(f)(3).
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Amirit Technologies v. HTN Wireless

Lago Agrio: Amicus Briefs In Support of the Donziger Petition

A group of international law scholars led by Professor Donald Anton, have filed an amicus brief in support of Steven Donziger’s petition for certiorari. The gist of the brief is that under principles of comity the courts of A should not entertain collateral attacks on the judgments of B unless forced to do so, which really will only happen if a party seeks recognition of the judgment of B in the courts of A.
(more…)

Continue ReadingLago Agrio: Amicus Briefs In Support of the Donziger Petition

Case of the Day: Development Specialists v. Li

I cannot recommend today’s case of the day, Development Specialists, Inc. v. Li (In re Coudert Bros. LLP) (S.D.N.Y. 2017), highly enough. It’s an excellent piece of work by Judge Kenneth M. Karas, a rare tour de force through FRCP 4 and its interplay with the Service Convention. Coudert Brothers, a New York law firm, had dissolved in 2005 and filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in New York in 2006. A plan of liquidation was confirmed in 2008. The plan allowed Coudert’s former partners to enter into a settlement agreement with Development Specialists, the plan administrator. According to the plan administrator’s declaration, Rupert X. Li, one of the former partners, who resided in Hong Kong, did not executed the agreement or otherwise participate in the plan. The administrator brought an adversary proceeding against Li for breach of contract and avoidance of fraudulent transfers.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Development Specialists v. Li

Editorial: President Trump Must Resign

I have been highly critical of President Trump, as you know. I think he is unfit for office. But I have also been hoping and rooting for his success, hoping against the evidence that he might grow into the role. He’s the President. His success is our success. Today, though, I’m throwing in the towel. President Trump must resign.
(more…)

Continue ReadingEditorial: President Trump Must Resign