13 Cited authorities

Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing
526 U.S. 344 (1999) Cited 2,725 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that, where defendant was faxed a courtesy copy of a filed complaint, defendant's time to remove is not triggered "by mere receipt of the complaint unattended by any formal service"
Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink
284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 1,488 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding website-operator defendant's magazine advertisements supported the exercise of jurisdiction where defendant also ran local radio advertisements
Prewitt Enterprises v. Org. of Petroleum
353 F.3d 916 (11th Cir. 2003) Cited 237 times
Holding that a "district court ‘may’ direct alternate means of service [under Rule 4(f)(3) ]"
Gorman v. Ameritrade Holding Corp.
293 F.3d 506 (D.C. Cir. 2002) Cited 186 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that “specific jurisdiction” is not available where the claim “does not arise out of any business transacted between the parties in the District ....”
Mann v. Castiel
681 F.3d 368 (D.C. Cir. 2012) Cited 134 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that motion to stay does not waive a defective service objection because it is "neither a responsive pleading ... nor a dispositive motion raising a defense listed in Rule 12(b)" and it does not "indicat[e] that a defendant intends to defend a suit on the merits"
Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Org. of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
766 F.3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 2014) Cited 41 times
Finding that “Austrian law considers service of process to be a sovereign act,” which “may be exerted only be [an Austrian] court”
Proctor Gamble v. Viskoza-Loznica
33 F. Supp. 2d 644 (W.D. Tenn. 1998) Cited 24 times
No. 95-2291-TUBRE. October 27, 1998. Maurice Wexler, Baker, Donelson, Bearman Caldwell, Memphis, TN, John Vanderstar, Maneesha Mithal, Covington Burling, Washington, DC, for Proctor Gamble Cellulose Company, plaintiff. Joseph M. Rogers, Hale Fogleman Rogers, West Memphis, AR, Deyan, Ranko, Brashich, Law Office of Deyan Ranko Brashich, New York City, for Viskoza-Loznica, Progres, Progres-Viskoza, Investbanka Beograd, defendants. ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Smallwood v. Allied Pickfords, LLC
08cv2196 BTM (RBB) (S.D. Cal. Sep. 29, 2009) Cited 7 times
Rejecting plaintiff's argument that his state law causes of action for negligence and breach of contract alleged “separate and independent harms” distinct from the loss of or damage to his goods since both claims asserted conduct related to the interstate misdelivery of goods
Graval v. P.T. Bakrie & Bros.
986 F. Supp. 1326 (C.D. Cal. 1996) Cited 20 times
Finding service invalid under Rule 4(f)(C) where Indonesian law prohibited it
Prewitt Enterprises, Inc. v. Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
224 F.R.D. 497 (N.D. Ala. 2002) Cited 5 times
Michael L. Allsup, V. Gerald Johnson, Michael Straus, Straus & Boies LLP, Birmingham, AL, Susan M. Donovan, Lewis & Mitchell LLC, Tuscaloosa, AL, Jeffrey Bartos, Guerrieri, Edmond & Clayman PC, Washington, DC, Abraham D. Sofaer, Stanford, CA, Robert J. Dwyer, David Boies, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Armonk, NY, for Plaintiff. Augusta S. Dowd, J. Mark White, White Dunn & Booker, Birmingham, AL, M. Christian King, Warren B. Lightfoot, Sam C. Pointer, Jr., Jackson R. Sharman, III, William L. Deas
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 354,229 times 943 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 71,368 times 127 Legal Analyses
Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time
Rule 44.1 - Determining Foreign Law
Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1 Cited 1,221 times 23 Legal Analyses
Noting the court's determination of foreign law is treated as a question of law

HASHEM v. AL SHABI et al

13 Cited authorities

Holding that, where defendant was faxed a courtesy copy of a filed complaint, defendant's time to remove is not triggered "by mere receipt of the complaint unattended by any formal service"

Holding website-operator defendant's magazine advertisements supported the exercise of jurisdiction where defendant also ran local radio advertisements

Holding that a "district court ‘may’ direct alternate means of service [under Rule 4(f)(3) ]"

Holding that “specific jurisdiction” is not available where the claim “does not arise out of any business transacted between the parties in the District ....”

Holding that motion to stay does not waive a defective service objection because it is "neither a responsive pleading ... nor a dispositive motion raising a defense listed in Rule 12(b)" and it does not "indicat[e] that a defendant intends to defend a suit on the merits"

Finding that “Austrian law considers service of process to be a sovereign act,” which “may be exerted only be [an Austrian] court”

Rejecting plaintiff's argument that his state law causes of action for negligence and breach of contract alleged “separate and independent harms” distinct from the loss of or damage to his goods since both claims asserted conduct related to the interstate misdelivery of goods

Finding service invalid under Rule 4(f)(C) where Indonesian law prohibited it

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

Noting the court's determination of foreign law is treated as a question of law