The case of the day is Seagate Technology, LLC v. Goel (Cal. App. Ct. 2022). The case is a followup to Rockefeller v. Changzhou Sinotype, 460 P.3d 764 (Cal.), cert.…
The case of the day is McCarthy v. Johnson (D.D.C. 2022). The plaintiff had won a $6 million judgment against Michael Heath Johnson, who, she alleged, had bilked her out…
The case of the day is Appel v. Hayut (SDNY 2020). The plaintiff, Ronit Appel, served process on David Kazhdan, a defendant in Israel, by hiring Rimon Deliveries and Services, apparently an Israeli delivery company, which then mailed the documents to Kazhdan through the Israeli post. Just so that this is clear, the documents were mailed from Rimon, in Israel, to Kazhdan, in Israel. Thus this is not the ordinary postal channels case where the question is the sufficiency of mail sent from the United States to the state of destination. (more…)
Readers, here is the petition for cert. in Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co. v. Rockefeller Investments (Asia) VII, a case from the California Supreme Court that you’ll remember from this spring. Here are the facts in a nutshell. A US company wins a big arbitral award against a Chinese company in a US-based arbitration. Rather than going to China to enforce the award, it sought a California judgment confirming the award. It brought an action in Los Angeles and served the summons and petition on the Chinese company, in China, via FedEx. (more…)
The case of the day is Densys Ltd. v. 3Shape Trios A/S (W.D. Tex. 2020). Densys was an Israeli company. It sued 3Share, a Danish company, for patent infringement. Densys served process by having the clerk send the documents to 3Share in Denmark by Fedex. 3Share moved to dismiss. (more…)
The case of the day is Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co. (Cal. 2020). I wrote about the intermediate appellate decision in October 2018, and I briefly noted the new decision last week. Sinotype was a Chinese company. The parties were negotiating towards a contract to form a new company, and they had an interim memorandum of understanding that provided:
The Parties shall provide notice in the English language to each other at the addresses set forth in the Agreement via Federal Express or similar courier, with copies via facsimile or email, and shall be deemed received 3 business days after deposit with the courier.
The Parties hereby submit to the jurisdiction of the Federal and State Courts in California and consent to service of process in accord with the notice provisions above.
In the event of any disputes arising between the Parties to this Agreement, either Party may submit the dispute to [JAMS] in Los Angeles for exclusive and final resolution … according to its streamlined procedures before a single arbitrator … pursuant to California law ….
When negotiations broke down, Rockefeller sought arbitration. It gave notice of the arbitration to SinoType via FedEx and email in China. SinoType did not appear in the arbitration, and the arbitrator awarded $414 million in damages. Rockefeller filed a petition under California law to confirm the award. It transmitted the petition and summons to SinoType in China via FedEx and email. SinoType defaulted and the court confirmed the award. SinoType then appeared and move to set aside the judgment for insufficient service of process. (more…)
The California Supreme Court has given its decision in Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co. (Cal. 2020). I will have full coverage next week, but I wanted readers to have early access to this important decision. This is the case of the parties who agreed to “service” (I put the word in quotes because it is at issue in the decision) in China by Fedex. The question was whether such an agreement can overcome China’s Article 10(a) objection under the Service Convention, which is really another way of asking: is Article 10 there to protect the interests of the litigants, or of the state? (more…)
The case of the day is Zanghi v. Ritella (S.D.N.Y. 2020). Francesco Zanghi and Zanghi LLC sued Piergraziano Ritella, Giuseppe Cavallaro, Alessandro Vacca, and Gioia e Vita S.r.L. alleging violations of the securities laws and the RICO Act. “Broadly described, the complaint alleges that defendants defrauded plaintiffs into investing in pizzerias in New York City and Miami.” He served some of the defendants in Italy by FedEx and some by email. The Italian defendants moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process. (more…)
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…)
The case of the day is Vista Peak Ventures, LLC v. GiantPlus Technology Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex. 2019). The claim against GiantPlus, a Taiwanese company, was for patent infringement. Vista Peak asked the clerk to send the summons and complaint by registered mail, return receipt requested, to GiantPlus in Taipei. So far so good. A security guard received and signed for the documents and then gave them to the General Administrator of the company, who sent a written acknowledgment of receipt but returned the package to the sender—the clerk—because it “was not directed to a specific individual or department.” GiantPlus then moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process. (more…)