New Decision on Email Service Under the Hague Service Convention
Regular TLB readers may recall that federal district courts are struggling with an important procedural question: whether they may authorize email service when the defendant resides in a country that is party to the Hague Service Convention. In Smart Study Co. v. Acuteye-U.S., Judge Gregory H. Woods (SDNY) held that the answer is no. The…
Continue ReadingBinding Non-Signatories to Service-of-Process Clauses
I have previously blogged about attempts to bind non-signatories to choice-of-law clauses and forum selection clauses via the closely-related-and-foreseeable doctrine. My general take is that while it is sometimes appropriate to rely on this doctrine in cases involving forum selection clauses, it is never appropriate to rely on it to bind a non-signatory to a…
Continue ReadingPreliminary Injunctions and the Hague Service Convention
In Whirlpool Corporation v. Shenzhen Sanlida Electrical Technology Company, the Fifth Circuit addressed the interaction between the Hague Service Convention and the preliminary injunction. Briefly, Whirlpool sued Shenzhen in the Eastern District of Texas for trademark and trade dress infringement related to Whirlpool’s “iconic” KitchenAid mixer. (Much like a prior Seventh Circuit case, this one…
Continue ReadingNew Scholarship on the Hague Service Convention
Thomas G. Vanderbeek recently published a note in the Vanderbilt Law Review that considers whether and to what extent parties should be permitted to “contract around” the Hague Service Convention (HSC). The conventional wisdom holds that the best way to avoid the HSC is to appoint a local agent to receive service of process. Once…
Continue ReadingFurther Developments in Smart Study
TLB has been following Smart Study v. Happy Party-001, a Chinese counterfeiting case in the Southern District of New York, since Judge Gregory Woods issued his thoughtful opinion last summer concluding that service by email on Chinese defendants is not permitted by the Hague Service Convention (a decision we covered in a prior blog post)….
Continue ReadingThe Impossibility of Serving Russian Defendants
The Hague Service Convention is a blessing and a curse. By obligating each country that has joined to designate a Central Authority for effectuating service of process on defendants within its territory, the Convention provides a means of service that respects foreign sovereignty, complies with federal rules, and helps ensure the enforceability of resulting judgments….
Continue ReadingA Primer on Service of Process
Serving process on a defendant does two things: (1) it asserts the court’s authority over the defendant; and (2) it provides the defendant with notice of the lawsuit. In the United States, process can be served by private parties. But many foreign states regard service as a public act that can be done only by…
Continue ReadingA Primer on Judicial Assistance Treaties
[This post is one in a series of primers on various topics in transnational litigation. More primers can be found on our topic pages, accessible by clicking Topics at the top of the page.] In transnational litigation it will often be necessary to do something within the territory of another state, such as serve process,…
Continue ReadingSeeking Second Circuit Review of Service in Smart Study
The plaintiff in Smart Study has attempted to appeal Judge Woods’ careful decision concluding that the Hague Service Convention does not permit service by email.
Continue ReadingServing Defendants in Ukrainian Territory Occupied by Russia
Both Russia and Ukraine are member states of the 1965 Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Service Convention (HSC)). After Russia occupied the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and its capital city, Sevastopol, and exercised control over certain areas of Ukraine (the “Occupied Areas”), Ukraine filed…
Continue Reading