Reuler-Lewin & Co. v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “a complaint need only apprise a defendant of the general time period of any alleged misstatements to meet the requirements of Rule 9(b)” (quotation marks and citation omitted)
• denying a motion to dismiss after improper service under Rule 4(e) because proper service could still be effectuated
• comparing VCDR supra, art. 39(2), with Vienna Convention on Consular Relations art. 43(1), Apr. 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 77
• finding insufficient service, ordering proper service, and addressing immunity and failure to state a claim arguments
• finding three-month period to be sufficient time range to meet particularity requirement
• denying motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process where proper service under the Hague Convention could still be obtained and noting that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impose no time limit for service in a foreign country

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).