Ms. Interpret v. Rawe Druck—Und—Veredlungs—GmbH (In Re Ms. Interpret)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that presumption was not rebutted because the defendant “did not present any evidence that [it] employed standardized sorting and routing procedures, or even that it regularly reviewed its mail”
• noting that attorneys represented client at meetings and voted without adjourning the proceedings to confer with client
• requiring that a party “do more than merely assert that it did not receive the mailing; its testimony or affidavit of non-receipt is insufficient, standing alone, to rebut the presumption”
• stating that more than an affidavit is required to overcome the presumption of receipt
• noting service upon a corporation’s claim address can be sufficient in some cases, where the proof of claim serves as an 'appointment' under Rule 7004(b)(3)
• no evidence of “standardized sorting and routing procedures” to rebut presumption of receipt

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).