Exhibit “A”: My post entitled “The Postman Always Rings Twice: NY Appeals Court Validates Service By Mail on Canadian Defendants” dated March 2, 2012:
Lawyers on both sides of the 49th parallel should take stock of the Fenech decision. While some commentators cling to the idea of the continuing relevance of personal service of process, Fenech represents a sea change in conflict of laws and cross-border litigation. If the decision stands, it will put many process servers out of work and render service through the official diplomatic channels of the Central Authority moot….
...Otherwise, Canadian defendants in foreign judgment enforcement proceedings are at a marked disadvantage, both in terms of challenging a foreign court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction. Personal service should remain the cornerstone of jurisdiction, bounded by the pillars of comity, reciprocity, good faith and order and fairness. [emphasis added]
Exhibit “B”: My SSRN abstract:
The recent decision of the New York Appeals Division in New York State Thruway Auth. v Fenech represents an American revolution in conflict of laws with fundamental implications to cross-border litigation.The Fenech decision overturns prior precedent against foreign service of process by mail under Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention. If the Fenech decision stands, it will put many process servers out of work and render service through the official diplomatic channels of the Central Authority moot. [emphasis added]
Exhibit “C”: This post from a “legal language translation service” website dated March 28, 2012:
“We’ve blogged about certified legal document translations [link removed] and serving a foreign defendant [link removed] under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d). In the recent case New York State Thruway Authority v. Fenech [link removed] a rather revolutionary change in the area of conflict of laws developed that will have significant implications on cross-border litigation. In summary, the decision overturns prior precedent against foreign service of process by mail under Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention. [link removed] If the decision is upheld on appeal, it will essentially put process servers out of a job and render services via official diplomatic channels moot. Instead, the process will become a vastly simplified mailing process.
Any jurisdiction that does not accept service by mail is essentially putting defendants in foreign proceedings at a disadvantage – both in terms of challenging a foreign court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Although this will require the use of foreign language translations [link removed] of the actual process and service, overall it will make the globalized legal world more efficient – and more fair.” [emphasis added]
Of course, who cares about other author’s copyright, when you have your own copyright notice:
I thought about sending a document to the
thief plagiarist splawger author for translation. Unfortunately, Croatian insults are often lost in translation.