Summary:
Plaintiff served the defendant, a Taiwanese corporation, through the U.S.-based registered agent of the defendant's subsidiary. After the defendant failed to appear, the plaintiff moved for a default judgment. The defendant claimed the service of process was improper.
The court held in favor of the defendant. Because there was no alter ego relationship between the Taiwanese parent corporation and its U.S. subsidiary, service on the subsidiary did not constitute service on the parent. That the parent company used the subsidiary as a conduit was not sufficient.
Takeaway:
This is the correct result, as Ted Folkman noted previously at his blog Letters Blogatory. For my part, I am more curious about the "conduit" argument that the plaintiff advanced--which is a New York test that is arguably less demanding compared to Texas test of requiring an alter ego. (To be sure, it is still quite demanding.) I wonder if the attorney was arguing the Texas standard was unduly difficult to meet.
Also notable that Taiwan is one of the few major economies that is not a signatory to the Hague Service Convention.
Also notable that Taiwan is one of the few major economies that is not a signatory to the Hague Service Convention.
Pretty sure they'd like to join the HSC, but can't get into the Hague club. Contrast this, though, with WTO agreements, to which Taiwan *is* a party.
ReplyDelete