19 Cited authorities

Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing
526 U.S. 344 (1999) Cited 2,674 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"
Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk
486 U.S. 694 (1988) Cited 872 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
Nuovo Pignone, SpA v. Storman Asia M/V
310 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2002) Cited 412 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Hague Convention does not allow for service by mail
Mid-Continent Wood Products, Inc. v. Harris
936 F.2d 297 (7th Cir. 1991) Cited 159 times
Finding service of the summons and complaint ineffective and quoting Way v. Mueller Brass Co., 840 F.2d 303 (7th Cir.1988) for the proposition that "a 'defendant's actual notice of the litigation . . . is insufficient to satisfy Rule 4's requirements.' "
Nylok Corp. v. Fastener World Inc.
396 F.3d 805 (7th Cir. 2005) Cited 88 times
Finding plaintiff attempted service when he hired a process server
Usha (India), Ltd. v. Honeywell International, Inc.
421 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 74 times
Holding that Rule 4(m)'s exception for service in a foreign country does not apply if the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the defendant in the foreign country; dismissing claim against foreign defendant where plaintiff made no attempt at foreign service within 120 days
FMAC Loan Receivables v. Dagra
228 F.R.D. 531 (E.D. Va. 2005) Cited 59 times
Holding that when the defendant's address was unknown, the Hague Convention did not apply and courts were free to allow service through publication under 4(f)
Naranjo v. Universal Surety of America
679 F. Supp. 2d 787 (S.D. Tex. 2010) Cited 44 times
Concluding that Rooker–Feldman did not bar suit alleging defendants violated the FDCPA by bringing time-barred collection actions in state court
RPost Holdings, Inc. v. Kagan
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-238-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2012) Cited 23 times
Determining defendant's address was unknown under the Hague Convention after the plaintiff attempted service on the address associated with defendant's online business website and requests defendant's address from defendant's attorney and been refused
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Aliaga
272 F.R.D. 617 (S.D. Fla. 2011) Cited 23 times
Authorizing service on foreign defendants through local counsel who stated that “he is not authorized to accept service of process on behalf of either defendant”
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 70,485 times 126 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

Glencore Ltd. v. Occidental Argentina Exploration and Production, Inc.

19 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 that a state law permitting a foreign corporation to be served domestically through its U.S. subsidiary did not implicate the Hague Service Convention

Holding that the Hague Convention does not allow for service by mail

Finding service of the summons and complaint ineffective and quoting Way v. Mueller Brass Co., 840 F.2d 303 (7th Cir.1988) for the proposition that "a 'defendant's actual notice of the litigation . . . is insufficient to satisfy Rule 4's requirements.' "

Finding plaintiff attempted service when he hired a process server

Holding that Rule 4(m)'s exception for service in a foreign country does not apply if the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the defendant in the foreign country; dismissing claim against foreign defendant where plaintiff made no attempt at foreign service within 120 days

Holding that when the defendant's address was unknown, the Hague Convention did not apply and courts were free to allow service through publication under 4(f)

Concluding that Rooker–Feldman did not bar suit alleging defendants violated the FDCPA by bringing time-barred collection actions in state court

Determining defendant's address was unknown under the Hague Convention after the plaintiff attempted service on the address associated with defendant's online business website and requests defendant's address from defendant's attorney and been refused

Authorizing service on foreign defendants through local counsel who stated that “he is not authorized to accept service of process on behalf of either defendant”

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