Case of the Day: Hudson Insurance Co. v. Klamath Superior Motor Co.

The case of the day is Hudson Insurance Co. v. Klamath Superior Motor Co. (D. Or. 2019). Hudson brought an interpleader action to resolve competing claims to a $40,000 motor vehicle dealer bond that it held. One of the claimants was Zachary Taylor, on active duty abroad with the Air Force. After the action was filed, Hudson emailed Hudson’s lawyer and stated that he was owed $6,000 and that he was interested in pursuing the matter, but that he was overseas and that regular communication would be difficult. He eventually stopped responding to emails. He was never served with process. The court ordered Taylor to file his claim within 90 days or else face dismissal of the claim. The magistrate judge recommended that the claim be dismissed. (more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Hudson Insurance Co. v. Klamath Superior Motor Co.

Hague Conference a|Bridged Event: What I’m Thinking About

If you haven’t already registered to attend the HCCH a|Bridged event on electronic technology and the Hague Service Convention on December 11 in the Hague, you should! I will be speaking on a panel with Katerina Ossenova of the Department of Justice and Emma Van Gelder of Erasmus University in Rotterdam, titled “The Prism: The Tech Battle for e-Service.” Each of us has been given a technology to champion for use under the Convention, and mine is secure email. Today I’d like to give a few ideas about the topic. (more…)

Continue ReadingHague Conference a|Bridged Event: What I’m Thinking About

Case of the Day: Rose v. Rose

The case of the day is Rose v. Rose (Mass. App. Ct. 2019). The husband, a citizen of France, and the wife, a citizen of the United States and Canada, were married in New York in 2011. Both worked as international officers for the United Nations, and they were “assigned to missions all over the world.” At the time of the marriage, the wife was living in New York and her husband was living in Haiti on an assignment. Later, in anticipation of a joint move to Lebanon, where the husband was soon to be relocated, the wife moved into her parents’ home in Holbrook, Mass., and then the couple lived together in Lebanon until 2013. The husband was then reassigned to Mali, where he remains, and the wife to Syria, where she lived until 2017. The wife traveled during this time, including to her parents’ house; the husband stayed with her there for a few weeks. After she returned from Syria, she lived with her parents for a few weeks before starting a new assignment in Switzerland.

The husband sought a divorce in France in April 2017. In May, the wife sought a divorce in the Probate and Family Court in Massachusetts, listing her parents’ home as her residence on the petition. When a sheriff sought to serve the French papers on her at that address, he was told she did not live there. The husband moved to dismiss the Massachusetts proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. Under Massachusetts law, in order to seek a divorce in Massachusetts in the circumstances of this couple, the wife had to show that she had resided in Massachusetts for a year. The wife’s position was that her residence remained in Massachusetts even though she had been working abroad temporarily. (more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Rose v. Rose

Case of the Day: Tracfone v. CNT Wireless

The case of the day is TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. CNT Wireless, LLC (S.D. Fla. 2019). TracFone accused the defendants of an “unlawful international mobile telephone trafficking scheme.” It sought leave to serve subpoenas on non-parties in Canada. The case is similar to TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Technopark Co. (S.D. Fla. 2012), which I described in a post called The Curse of TracFone. (more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Tracfone v. CNT Wireless

Case of the Day: Sucesores de Done Carlo Nuñez v. Société Générale

The case of the day is Sucesores de Done Carlo Nuñez y Doña Pura Galvez, Inc. v. Société Générale S.A. (S.D. Fla. 2019). The case was a Helms-Burton Act case. Banco Nuñez sought leave to serve process on the Bank of Nova Scotia and the National Bank of Canada, both Canadian firms, and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A., a Spanish bank, by alternate means, namely, by service on wholly-owned American subsidiaries. (more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Sucesores de Done Carlo Nuñez v. Société Générale
Read more about the article The Medellín Treaty: Electronic Transmission of Requests for Service
Letters Blogatory honors America's veterans on Veterans' Day.

The Medellín Treaty: Electronic Transmission of Requests for Service

Usually when we talk about electronic means of service of process we are talking about the service of process itself. But in cases where the Hague Service Convention or the Inter-American Convention applies, there is another question: how does one central authority transmit the documents to be served to another central authority? The Conventions themselves are silent on the question. (more…)

Continue ReadingThe Medellín Treaty: Electronic Transmission of Requests for Service

Case of the Day: Brown v. Tamas

The case of the day is Brown v. Tamas (Cal. Ct. App. 2019). Here is how the decision begins:

The Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters sets the rules for service of judicial documents in foreign countries. When the Probate Code requires delivery of notice, as opposed to service of notice, on an individual in a foreign country, does the Hague Service Convention apply?

(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Brown v. Tamas

Case of the Day: Finjan v. Zscaler

The case of the day is Finjan, Inc. v. Zscaler, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2019). It’s from early in 2019, but I missed it when it was issued. The case was a patent dispute. Finjan, a computer security company, sought the production of emails from Tim Warner, a British citizen living in the UK. The emails were important, Finjan said, because Warner, its previous sales director who now headed UK sales for the defnedant, had “intimate knowledge” of the patented technology and “could explain [it] inside out.” Zscaler argued that it could not produce the emails, because production would violate the GDPR. It claimed that Finjan’s proposed search terms were overbroad and would require the production of unnecessary personal data, which would have to be anonymized or redacted. Zscaler argued that Fujian should first have to try to obtain the emails from custodians in the United States, that the protective order would have to be amended, and that in any even an “attorneys’ eyes only” production would have satisfied the GDPR. (more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Finjan v. Zscaler