Siegert v. Gandolfi

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that an objection to Article 10(a)’s service by “postal channels” does not encompass an objection to service by email
• holding that objection to Article 10 and postal mail service is different from objection to service by email
• holding that China’s Article 10 objection “does not cover service by email”
• finding that email service satisfied due process when the email was listed prominently on the homepage of defendant’s website
• finding that email service satisfied due process when the email was listed prominently on the homepage of defendant’s website
• noting that “courts in the Southern District of New York generally impose” these “two additional threshold requirements before authorizing service under Rule 4(f)(3)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).