§Why CasetextPricing

MacroSolve, Inc. v. Antenna Software, Inc. et al

REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION to Dismiss

5 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V

    22 F.3d 634 (5th Cir. 1994)   Cited 269 times
    Holding that removal of action to wrong division of right district created procedural, rather than jurisdictional defect, and could be remedied by transferring case to correct division

  4. Sheets v. Yamaha Motors Corp., U.S.A

    891 F.2d 533 (5th Cir. 1990)   Cited 127 times
    Upholding district court's decision not to award costs to prevailing party where it was "forced to endure defendants' repeated and abusive hardball tactics," including unjustifiable refusal to produce documents, violating an order to compel, repeatedly making false representations to the court, and more

  5. NOCANDO MEM HOLDINGS, LTD. v. CREDIT COMMERCIAL DE FRANCE

    Cause No. SA-01-CV-01194-XR (W.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2004)   Cited 1 times

    Cause No. SA-01-CV-01194-XR. October 27, 2004 AGREED ORDER GRANTING THE CCF DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING XAVIER RODRIGUEZ, District Judge On this date, the Court considered the CCF Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Responsive Pleading (Docket entry #150). After careful consideration, the Court will grant the Motion. Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: 1. The time for the CCF Defendants (including HF-CCF and HF-CCFI