19 Cited authorities

  1. Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing

    526 U.S. 344 (1999)   Cited 2,577 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"
  2. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk

    486 U.S. 694 (1988)   Cited 860 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
  3. Nuovo Pignone, SpA v. Storman Asia M/V

    310 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2002)   Cited 408 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Hague Convention does not allow for service by mail
  4. Mid-Continent Wood Products, Inc. v. Harris

    936 F.2d 297 (7th Cir. 1991)   Cited 158 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.' "
  5. Nylok Corp. v. Fastener World Inc.

    396 F.3d 805 (7th Cir. 2005)   Cited 85 times
    Finding plaintiff attempted service when he hired a process server
  6. Usha (India), Ltd. v. Honeywell International, Inc.

    421 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2005)   Cited 73 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
  7. FMAC Loan Receivables v. Dagra

    228 F.R.D. 531 (E.D. Va. 2005)   Cited 58 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)
  8. Naranjo v. Universal Surety of America

    679 F. Supp. 2d 787 (S.D. Tex. 2010)   Cited 43 times
    Concluding that Rooker–Feldman did not bar suit alleging defendants violated the FDCPA by bringing time-barred collection actions in state court
  9. RPost Holdings, Inc. v. Kagan

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-238-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2012)   Cited 22 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
  10. 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”
  11. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 68,513 times   121 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