§Why CasetextPricing

Hellen Min vs. Modern Motors, Inc.

Motion to Quash Service of Summons

11 Cited authorities

  1. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk

    486 U.S. 694 (1988)   Cited 880 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state law permitting a foreign corporation to be served domestically through its U.S. subsidiary did not implicate the Hague Service Convention

  2. Dill v. Berquist Construction Co.

    24 Cal.App.4th 1426 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 265 times
    Holding that service of process fails when sent generally to a business's address

  3. Kott v. Superior Court

    45 Cal.App.4th 1126 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 116 times
    Holding that, under California law, which does not require the transmission of documents abroad and, consequently, does not implicate the Hague Service Convention, the only method of service on a foreign national is service of summons by publication where the party's address remains unknown during the publication period despite the exercise of reasonable diligence

  4. Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Superior Court

    59 Cal.App.4th 789 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 73 times
    Filing a proof of service that complies with the applicable statutory requirements creates a rebuttable presumption of proper service

  5. In re Vanessa Q.

    187 Cal.App.4th 128 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 27 times
    Explaining requirements of the Hague Service Convention

  6. Honda Motor Co. v. Superior Court

    10 Cal.App.4th 1043 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that service in Japan upon a Japanese corporation by certified mail was not valid under California law or the Hague Service Convention, even though evidence showed the corporation had actual knowledge and the service documents bore the corporation's receipt stamp

  7. Suzuki Motor Co. v. Superior Court

    200 Cal.App.3d 1476 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Docket No. E004900. May 6, 1988. Page 1477 COUNSEL Clinnin, Siracuse Belcher, Roy A. Goto and John R. Dangl, Jr., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. DeWitt Algorri, Mark S. Algorri and Ernest P. Algorri for Real Party in Interest. OPINION McDANIEL, J. — INTRODUCTION Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. (Suzuki), defendant below, by the petition here seeks a writ of mandate to compel the superior court to vacate its order denying Suzuki's motion to quash service of process and to enter an order granting

  8. Porsche v. Superior Court

    123 Cal.App.3d 755 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 23 times

    Docket No. 20476. September 21, 1981. COUNSEL Donovan, Leisure, Newton Irvine, Peter J. Courture and Stephen T. Waimey for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Long Levit, David W. Evans, Joseph P. McMonigle, Hinton Van Blois, R. Lewis Van Blois and Thomas C. Knowles for Real Parties in Interest. OPINION CARR, J. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court acquired personal jurisdiction over petitioner (Porsche), who seeks mandate to compel the trial court to vacate its order denying

  9. Schering Corp. v. Superior Court

    52 Cal.App.3d 737 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 12 times
    In Schering Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 52 Cal.App.3d 737, the real party in interest filed an action for negligence and products liability alleging injury from the use of the drugs "Feminone," and "Pro-estrin."

  10. General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court

    15 Cal.App.3d 81 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 15 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In General Motors, a secretary employed by the defendant-corporation had represented that a particular corporate officer was authorized to accept service when the corporation had not authorized the officer to do so.

  11. 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