Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011

8/3/2019 Ifill CivProOutline Spring 2011

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ifill-civprooutline-spring-2011 1/24

14/12/2010 10:13:00

← Grable Test?

← Gasperini?

←

← 1332

← 1367

← 28 USC § 1331

← 1391

← 1404

←



14/12/2010 10:13:00

← Ch 2: Jurisdiction Over the Parties or Their Property

• Personal J Checklist:

o Was the defendant properly served with process within the state

(constitutional ?

yes- there is general personal jurisdiction

no- go to the next question

o Does the forum state’s long-arm statute provide for jurisdiction over the

defendant? (may list the required contacts)

no- there is no personal jurisdiction

yes- go to the next question

o Does the defendant have proper contacts to satisfy general jurisdiction?

(Consent, Domiciled, Owns Property)

yes- there is general personal jurisdiction no- go to next question

o Does the defendant have substantial minimum contacts with the forum state to

allow for specific personal jurisdiction?

• Expanding the Bases of Personal Jurisdiction

o Hess v. Pawloski

Hess was charged with negligent driving

Was not personally served and had no property in Mass.

Mass gov’t passes a law of implied consent, that when you drive

through the state, you appoint gov’t official to serve process

Appeals that it violated police power

Court says that it is ok because state has the right to regulate

There’s a safety concern-police power

No discrimination against out-of-staters



• A New Theory of Jurisdiction

o International Shoe Co v. Washington

Issue: whether Washington has J over an out-of-state business that

engages in business within the state, with an agent in state who was

served. Presence:

Minimum Contacts

• Agents, Rentals, Sales

• Systematic and continuous

Specific J: Can be sued for something arising out of these

contacts, regardless of minimal-ness

General J: Can be sued where HQ is

Test:

Received benefits as a result of protection form state laws/

services

Not violate fair play/substantial justice: burden on parties,

interest of state, evidence, witnesses

Quality and frequency in relation to law

General J:

• Corporate HQ

• State of Incorporation

• Domiciled• Specific Jurisdiction and State Long-Arm Statutes

o Development of Long-Arm Laws

Gray v. American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corp

When the statute covers a particular event and that event both

relates to the case and occurred in the forum state, the event

satisfies minimum contacts



o Due Process and Long-Arm Statutes

McGee v. International Life Ins. Co.

Contract issued by foreign corporation to resident of California

had substantial connection with that state sufficient to meet

requirements of due process. Less burdensome to litigate across states

Substantial Connections

Hanson v. Denkla

How extensive must contacts be?

Must be some act by which the D purposefully avails itself of

the privilege of conducting activity in the forum state, thus

invoking its benefits and protections

Worldwide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

Purposeful availment

Test:

• Minimum contacts

• Foreseeability

• Reasonableness and Fairness

Burger King Corp v. Rudewicz

D’s purposefully availed themselves to the forum

Foreseeability and fair warning

• Site of injury as well Asahi Metal Industry v. Superior Court

Purposeful availment: knew product could end up in forum

state

Calder v. Jones



A state has personal jurisdiction over any party whose actions

intentionally reach another party in the state and are the basis

for the cause of action.

• General Jurisdiction and State Long-Arm Statutes

o Domicile: Where you intend to stay

o Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co

Can a state exercise PJ over a foreign corp when the cause of action

does not arise in the state or relate to an of the corp.’s activities while

in the state?

As long as activities in the state are systematic and continuous

o Fisher Governor Co. V. Superior Court

Need more than sales and sales promotion within state by ind

nonexclusive sales reps

o Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, SA v. Hall

Personal J Test: Can you hail D to state?

Purposeful Availment

Interest of Forum State

Reasonableness

• Internet and Other Technological Contacts

o Pebble Beach v. Caddy

Personal Jurisdiction Purposeful Availment

Purposeful Direction

• Jurisdiction Based Upon Power Over Property

o Harris v. Balk



Creditor can claim a debt against one of his debtor’s debtors

The debt follows the debtor wherever he goes

o Shaffer v. Heitner

Kills Pennoyer

Needs a quasi in rem standard(subject to min contacts) Mere ownership of property in a state is not a sufficient contact to

subject the property owner to a lawsuit in that state unless the property

is the subject of that lawsuit

Insufficient contact owning stock in a company

Everything must meet min contacts

• A Refrain: Jurisdiction Based Upon Physical Presence

o Burnham v. Superior Court

Issue: whether due process requires a similar connection between the

litigation and the defendant’s contacts with the state in cases where the

D is physically resent in the State and the time process is served upon

him

Physical presences has been and still is always jurisdiction but must be

voluntary

Shaffer: quasi in rem jurisdiction and in personum jurisdiction are

really one and the same and must be treated alike, and satisfy the

litigation- relatedness requirement of Shoe

• Another Basis of Jurisdiction: Consento Ins Corp of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Baux-Ites De Guinee

If you contest the issue in court you consent to abiding vy the court

rule and procedures

By contesting the jurisdiction you may not be contesting to whether

the jurisdiction is valid but you are consenting to the court’s authority

to decide that issue

o M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co

There can’t be globalized commerce and not honor forum selection

clauses

o Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc v. Shute

Cruise line had a special in limiting forum because customers come

from all over



• Types of clauses:

o Choice of law clause:

Tells course which law should apply

o Consent to jurisdiction clause

Parties consent to a certain forum but is not limited to that forumo Forum selection (Carnival, Bremen)

This is the only appropriate forum

o Arbitration Clauses

Parties waive right to jury trial

Controversial, legislature trying to limit arbitration clauses

Arbitrators can be swayed

← Ch 3: Providing Notice and an Opportunity to be Heard

• The Requirement of Reasonable Notice

o Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co

Notice Requirements:

Notice by publication is insufficient if address is known

But ok if address is unknown

o Goldberg v. Kelly

Post-termination is not allowed if it is a right, but entitlement is not a

right

Requirements for a post-hearing

Adequate notice



Need opportunity to confront witnesses

Need to be able to present oral argument

o Matthews v. Eldridge

Termination of benefits:

Due process: meaningful time and manner Balancing test:

Private interest at stake

Risk of erroneous deprivation

Government interest- cost

o Lassiter

Private Interests

Parent has strong interest in fairness and justice of the trial

Risk of erroneous deprivation

Shouldn’t take away a parent who deserves child

Government Interest

Keeping cost down

• The Mechanics of Giving Notice

o Specific Applications of the Service Provisions

Federal Rule 4(d): Waiving Service

Maryland State Fireman’s Association v. Chaves

Federal Rule 4(e): Personal Delivery on Natural Persons



Federal Rule 4(e)(2)(B): Service on a Person Residing in D’s Dwelling

or Usual Place of Abode

Federal Rule 4(e)(2)(C): Delivery to an Agent Authorized by

Appointment

National Equipment Rental Ltd. V. Szukhent Federal Rule 4(h): Serving a Corporation, Partnership or Association

Ins Co of North American v. S/S Hellenic Challenger

Federal Rule 4(f): Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country

Wagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk

• Immunity From Process and Etiquette of Service

o Immunity From Process

State Ex Rel. Sivnksty v. Duffield

A nonresident defendant may be served with process for a civil

action while confined to jail for a criminal prosecution arising

from the same acts if the defendant was voluntarily in the

jurisdiction at the time of arrest and confinement.

o Etiquette of Service

Wyman v. Newhouse

A judgment based on service of process procured by fraud is

invalid.

← Ch 4: Jurisdiction Over the Subject Mater of the Action: The Court’s Competency

• Subject-Matter Jurisdiction in State Courtso Lacks v. Lacks

Problems discovered in cause for relief does not remove SMJ

o Tafflin v. Levitt

State courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide civil claims brought

under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

Holding: the principle that lack of SMJ makes a final judgment void is

not applicable to cases which, upon analysis, do not involve

jurisdiction, but merely substantive elements of a cause for relief



Would undermine res judicata: a case in which there is a final

judgment is not subject to appeal

And would eliminate the certainty and finality in the law and in

litigation which the doctrine is designed to protect

Because the matter had gone to final judgment the mattershould have ended

o Thrasher v. U.S. Liab. Ins. Co.

Drew a distinction between court’s competence to entertain an action

and its power to render a judgment on the merits

Absence of competence to entertain action deprives court of

SMJ; absence of power to reach the merits does not

• The Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts- Diversity of Citizenship

o Domicile: Primary establishment where someone lives/lived and intend to

return to sometime in the foreseeable future

Corporated places of business: weight is given to where production or

service activities are

Considers all circumstance of a corporation

Unincorped like unions or law firms

Domicile of every member is considered

If one person is domiciled in the same state as the P there is no

diversity jurisdiction

o Aggregation Rules: Single Parties can aggregate all claims, even if unrelated.

Multiple Parties : no aggregation unless the claims are joint, such as

undivided interest claims (i.e., ∆ ’s jointly liable); ’s allegation of π

amount suffices unless disproved as a legal certainty, injunctions

should be quantified in $ value to meet the jurisdictional requirement.

Single P cannot aggregate costs for one D

2 P sue 1 D and neither meet juris threshold can’t aggregate claims

unless they are seeking to enforce right they share

unlikely in personal injury

More than one P and one doesn’t meet jurisdictional threshold the

court can exercise Supp. Juris. Over both

P -> D (c1+c2)



Can be aggregated

P-> D1 <- $75,000

D2 <- $75,000

Can’t be aggregated

As long as one of the claims is > $75,000 and there is diversitycitizenship, you can get into federal court

• The SMJ of the Federal Courts- Federal Questions

o Complaint arise from federal law

No minimum amount

o Express or implied federal cause of action? No> Allege a state cause of action

in which fed law is essential? Yes > Private right of action?> Yes? FQJ

o Four-part test (307) Private Right of action

Is P one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted

Is there an indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to

create such a remedy or to deny one

Is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme

to imply a remedy for the plaintiff

Is the cause of action one traditionally relegated to state law in an area

basically the concern of the States, so that is would be inappropriate to

infer a cause of action based solely on federal law

o Louisville And Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley

Anticipating that a D will make a claim under a fed statute does notqualify for fed q

o Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc v. Thompson

If legis never intended statute to allow a private cause of action- there

can be no fed q

o Grable And Sons Metal Products Inc v. Darue Engineering And

Manufacturing

If there is a coexisting fed and state law can choose either for

jurisdiction so long as fed j wouldn’t disturb any congressionally

approved balance of fed and state judicial responsibilities

• The SMJ of the Federal Courts- Supplemental Claims & Parties



o §1367(a) authorizes a court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over civil

actions and contains two bases for declining supplemental jurisdiction: (1) a

federal statute that prohibits supplemental jurisdiction

o Part (b) lists the Rules of Civil Procedure under which a district court could

not exercise supplemental jurisdiction.o (c) details other circumstances in which the court may choose to decline to

exercise supplemental jurisdiction: (1) a novel or complex issue of State law,

(2) predominance of a state claim, (3) dismissal of the case under original

jurisdiction, and (4) in exceptional circumstances, other compelling reasons

o Same case or controversy? Y> Fed Q /DJ? Fed Q>SMJ, DJ> no

o United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs

three-part test to establish jurisdiction:

(1) the federal claim must confer subject matter jurisdiction,

(2) the federal and state claims must derive from a “common

nucleus of operative fact,”

(3) the claims must be such that the plaintiff would be expected

to try the cases together

If the federal claim loses out the state claim can still be heard in fed

court if it passes the test (Pendant J)

Shouldn’t exercise Pendent J:

Doctrine of discretion

Even if federal claims are dismissed before action can befurthered then they should dismiss state claims as well even if

fed claim was sufficient

If state claim is the real body of the claim

o State National Ins Co v Yates

If diversity is destroyed by P over Joinder rules then no J

BUT if diversity is destroyed by D court can

Counter claims do not make a D a P for 1367

o Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Services Inc

At least one of the P’s in a claim have to meet the 75,000 threshhold to

qualify for SMJ

o Executive Software North American Inc v. United States District Court for the

Central District of CA



Affirmed Gibbs but with 1367 which is stricter- mandatory language

• The SMJ of the Federal Courts- Removal

o If there is a case for SMJ in federal court, and the P files in state court, the D

can file for removal to federal court

Court can also move a caseo 1441: When can a case be removed?

Only goes from state court to federal court

• Cant’ remove the other way

o Federal court can remand though

if the case could have been filed in federal court in the first

place

where federal SMJ (diversity or fed q)

If D is sued in the state it’s domiciled and there’s a case for

diversity jurisdiction, it cannot remove to federal court on basis

of diversity

• The purpose of diversity jurisdiction to prevent out of

state prejudice is no longer an issue

• If diversity changes after the original complaint cannot

be removed (there are exceptions)

o 1446: Procedure for removal

o If lack of SMJ is discovered late in the process it’ll be allowed for efficiency,

finality and economy (Caterpillar v Lewis)o Challenging the SMJ of the Court

Direct Attack on a Court’s Lack of SMJ

United States v. Unites Mine Workers

• Common nucleus and try together

Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group

• Even if a lack of diversity is cured after filing, the case

lacked SMJ at the time



Collateral Attack on a Judgment for Lack of SMJ

Court can raise a challenge to SMJ on behalf of parties

← Ch 5: Venue, Transfer, and Forum Non Conveniens

• Venue

o Venue In Federal Courts Bates v. C and S Adjusters Inc

Can avail self of forum if forwards mail

• Transfer of Venue in Federal Courts

o Hoffman v. Blaski

Court can transfer for convenience of witnesses

• Forum Non Conveniens

o Gulf Oil Corp v. Gilbert

Ease of access to sources of proof

Availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling

witnesses

Cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses

Possibility of views of premises if appropriate

All other problems of ease, expeditiousness, and cost

o Piper Aircraft Co v. Reyno

Applies Gilbert

o Odenton

Weigh public and private interests



Must weight heavily in favor of moving party

← Ch 6: Ascertaining the Applicable Law

• State Law in Federal Courts

o The Erie Doctrine: The Rules of Decision Act and the Rules Enabling Act

Erie R Co v. Tompkins A federal court in diversity jurisdiction must apply state

substantive law

Prevents forum shopping

Guaranty Trust Co v. York

Outcome-determinative test: state law controls only if the

choice between state or federal law could determine the

outcome

Ask about state law…

Whether kind of law that would cause are reasonable litigant

to choose or escape the state forum at a point in time when it is

still possible to comply with both federal and state law

because of the laws effect on the character or result of the law

suit.

question about STATE LAW.

• Can't forum shop for diff substantive standard

• Point in time matters.

• Statute of limitations - not outcome determinative Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc

Interest Assessment test

• Is the state rule “bound up by the [state created] rights

and obligations?” if so state rule applies?

• Even if it isn’t, would application of state v. federal law

determine outcome?

• Even is so, then court must balance state interest against

federal interest.

Hanna v. Plummer



Federal procedural rules (unless found constitutional and

invalid under the Rules Enabling Act) are not overridden by

state law or policy

Test:

• Is there a FRCP or statute on point?• If so, question is whether it’s constitutional and, in the

case of a rule, comports with the Rules Enabling Act?

• When there’s no fed rule or statute, question is whether

fed practice would lead to

o Forum shopping OR

o Inequitable administration of the laws

Walker c. Armco Steel Corp

If both rules can operate together: awesome

If not: if there is a state SOL, that will be respected by the

court. There is not specific statute or FRCP that sets a SOL for

every kind of action

Stewart Org, Inc v. Ricoh Corp

Forum selection clauses respected in federal court

Gasperini v. Center for Humanities Inc

If a state law can be used without violating the federal it should

←



14/12/2010 10:13:00

← 1. Does court have subject matter jurisdiction?

• Diversity

• Federal Q

o Four-part test (307) (Private Right of Action)

Is P one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted

Is there an indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to

create such a remedy or to deny one

Is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme

to imply a remedy for the plaintiff

Is the cause of action one traditionally relegated to state law in an area

basically the concern of the States, so that is would be inappropriate to

infer a cause of action based solely on federal law

•

Supplemental Jurisdictiono Three-part test to establish jurisdiction:

(1) the federal claim must confer subject matter jurisdiction,

(2) the federal and state claims must derive from a “common nucleus

of operative fact,”

(3) the claims must be such that the plaintiff would be expected to try

the cases together

If the federal claim loses out the state claim can still be heard

in fed court if it passes the test (Pendant J)

Shouldn’t exercise Pendent J:

Doctrine of discretion

Even if federal claims are dismissed before action can be

furthered then they should dismiss state claims as well even if

fed claim was sufficient

If state claim is the real body of the claim

← 2. Does court have personal jurisdiction over D?

• Specific: Minimum contacts (International)

o

Purposeful availment



Offices or Agents in Forum State (McGee)

Reached into forum state to solicit or initiate business (McGee/ BK)

Engaged in significant or long-term business activities in state (BK)

Nature, quality, and extent of the parties’ communications about the

business being transacted (Consulting) Did D make in-person contact with the resident of the forum in the

forum state regarding the business relationship (Consulting)

Any ads must be aimed at the specific forum

o Claim arises from forum-related activities or was a result of such activity

D committed intentional tort

P felt brunt of harm in forum

D expressly aimed tortious conduct at the forum

o Reasonableness

o Contact with forum state must be significant

• General

o Corporate HQ

o State of Incorporation

o Domiciled

← 3. Assuming SMJ and PJ, has the D received proper notice and ability to be heard?

(Minor Part/ Elderidge standard)

← 4. Have the service of process been carried out properly?

• Service of Process: the procedure employed to give legal notice to a person (such as adefendant) of a court or administrative body's exercise of its jurisdiction over that

person so as to enable that person to respond to the proceeding before the court, body

or other tribunal.

← 5. Does the court have proper venue?

← 6. Can D remove the case to federal court?



• if the case could have been filed in federal court in the first place

• where federal SMJ (diversity or fed q)

• If D is sued in the state it’s domiciled and there’s a case for diversity jurisdiction, it

cannot remove to federal court on basis of diversity

← 7. What law applies? Federal or state?• The Rules of Decision Act requires that federal courts apply state law in their

decisions arising out of diversity jurisdiction, except when in conflict with federal

law.

• § 2072. Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe (REA)

o (a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of

practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States

district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and

courts of appeals.

o (b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All

laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such

rules have taken effect.

o (c) Such rules may define when a ruling of a district court is final for the

purposes of appeal under section 1291 of this title.

• Basic Rule:

o Federal court hearing a state claim pursuant to diversity or supplemental

jurisdiction must apply state substantive law and federal procedural law

o Sometimes, line between substance and procedure is blurred• Steps in the Analysis:

o Is there a conflict between the state and federal standard?

If they can be “harmonized,” no conflict and court will apply both

If there is a direct conflict, apply the various tests from Hanna/Byrd

• Modern Erie Test (use only if a direct conflict between federal and state law):

o Step 1: Is there a federal statute or rule on point? (fed r of civ pro, statute

passed by congress, constitutional provision)

If yes, under Hanna test, federal law is supreme and must be followed,

but there is a check…

o Step 2: Is the statute a valid exercise of federal (congressional) power that

comports with the Rules Enabling Act (in other words, is this truly a

procedural rule, or does it improperly “abridge, enlarge or modify” a

substantive right?)



***Most cases resolved at this point, because federal law is supreme

and will be applied

o Step 3: if no federal rule or statute on point, consider the following questions:

A: will following the federal practice lead to 1) forum shopping or 2)

the inequitable administration of laws (the “twin aims” of Erie)-if yes,then use the state practice/law

B: Is the state rule “bound up with” state-created rights and

obligations? If so, under Byrd, state rule applies

C: UNLESS, the federal interest strongly outweighs the state interest

(if Byrd had been decided using Hanna test, would have been resolved

earlier because there was a federal constitutional provision on point,

and federal Constitution is supreme)



14/12/2010 10:13:00

← Federal Rule of Civ Pro 4

← (d) Waiving Service.

← (1) Requesting a Waiver.

← An individual, corporation, or association that is subject to service under Rule 4(e), (f), or

(h) has a duty to avoid unnecessary expenses of serving the summons. The plaintiff may notify

such a defendant that an action has been commenced and request that the defendant waive

service of a summons. The notice and request must:

• (A) be in writing and be addressed:

o (i) to the individual defendant; or

o (ii) for a defendant subject to service under Rule 4(h), to an officer, a

managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or

by law to receive service of process;

•

(B) name the court where the complaint was filed;• (C) be accompanied by a copy of the complaint, 2 copies of a waiver form, and a

prepaid means for returning the form;

• (D) inform the defendant, using text prescribed in Form 5, of the consequences of

waiving and not waiving service;

• (E) state the date when the request is sent;

• (F) give the defendant a reasonable time of at least 30 days after the request was sent

— or at least 60 days if sent to the defendant outside any judicial district of the

United States — to return the waiver; and

• (G) be sent by first-class mail or other reliable means.

← (2) Failure to Waive.

← If a defendant located within the United States fails, without good cause, to sign and

return a waiver requested by a plaintiff located within the United States, the court must impose

on the defendant:

• (A) the expenses later incurred in making service; and

• (B) the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, of any motion required to

collect those service expenses.

←

(3) Time to Answer After a Waiver.← A defendant who, before being served with process, timely returns a waiver need not

serve an answer to the complaint until 60 days after the request was sent — or until 90 days after

it was sent to the defendant outside any judicial district of the United States.

← (4) Results of Filing a Waiver.



← When the plaintiff files a waiver, proof of service is not required and these rules apply as

if a summons and complaint had been served at the time of filing the waiver.

← (5) Jurisdiction and Venue Not Waived.

← Waiving service of a summons does not waive any objection to personal jurisdiction or to

venue.←

← (e) Serving an Individual Within a Judicial District of the United States.

← Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual — other than a minor, an

incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed — may be served in a judicial

district of the United States by:

← (1) following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general

jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made; or

← (2) doing any of the following:

• (A) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual

personally;

• (B) leaving a copy of each at the individual’s dwelling or usual place of abode with

someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there; or

• (C) delivering a copy of each to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to

receive service of process.

←

← (f) Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country.

← Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual - other than a minor, an incompetentperson, or a person whose waiver has been filed - may be served at a place not within any

judicial district of the United States:

← (1) by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give

notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and

Extrajudicial Documents;

← (2) if there is no internationally agreed means, or if an international agreement allows but

does not specify other means, by a method that is reasonably calculated to give notice:

• (A) as prescribed by the foreign country's law for service in that country in an action

in its courts of general jurisdiction;

• (B) as the foreign authority directs in response to a letter rogatory or letter of request;

or

• (C) unless prohibited by the foreign country's law, by:

o (i) delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the individual

personally; or



o (ii) using any form of mail that the clerk addresses and sends to the individual

and that requires a signed receipt; or

← (3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.

←

←

← (h) Serving a Corporation, Partnership, or Association.

← Unless federal law provides otherwise or the defendant’s waiver has been filed, a

domestic or foreign corporation, or a partnership or other unincorporated association that is

subject to suit under a common name, must be served:

← (1) in a judicial district of the United States:

• (A) in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1) for serving an individual; or

• (B) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a

managing or general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to

receive service of process and — if the agent is one authorized by statute and the

statute so requires — by also mailing a copy of each to the defendant; or

← (2) at a place not within any judicial district of the United States, in any manner

prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving an individual, except personal delivery under (f)(2)(C)(i)

Serving the United States and Its Agencies, Corporations, Officers, or Employees.



14/12/2010 10:13:00

←