User:CapitalCapybara/sandbox

Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon

Talk

Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon Draft

Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon is a pending United States Supreme Court case in which the Court will decide whether the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (the "Hague Service Convention") permits service of judicial process abroad by mail, when the country in which the person being served resides has not objected to that method of service.

The case was orally argued on March 22, 2017, and a decision is expected by June 2017.

Background

The petitioner in this case is Water Splash, Inc., is a water playground equipment manufacturer based in New York. They specialize in a playground system called a "splash pad", a product that is popular with municipalities. The respondent is Tara Menon, a Canadian citizen living in Quebec and onetime sales rep for Water Splash Inc.. The petitioner sued the respondent in state district court in Galveston, Texas, alleging that Menon, while working as a regional sales representative for Water Splash, also worked for competitor company South Pool and re-purposed Water Splash designs and drawings in order to submit a bid by South Pool to the city of Galveston, Texas for the building of splash pads in two municipal parks.

The trial court allowed Water Splash to effect service of process on Menon in Canada through several means, including certified mail. Although this service was successful, Menon failed to answer or appear and Water Splash was granted a default judgement. Menon then filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the service by mail was not consistent with the Hague Service Convention.

The argument in this case largely revolves around whether or not the right to "send" includes the right to "effect service" of a legal document.

Further Reading

• 1
• 2

References

————————

To Paraphprase

The key question in this case, then, is whether the right to “send” a legal document through the mail encompasses the right to “effect service” of a legal document. Most courts of appeals that have addressed the issue have answered “yes,” but the Texas 14th Court of Appeals joined the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th and 8th Circuits, as well as a handful of state courts, in answering “no.”

for unfair competition and tortious interference with business relations. App. 2a-3a. Petitioner specifically alleged that Menon, once a sales rep for Water Splash, went to a competitor who then used Water Splash’s designs and drawings in 3 submitting a bid to the City of Galveston for the construction of splash pads at two city parks. Ibid.

The trial court denied Menon’s motion for a new trial but the Texas Court of Appeals reversed and held that the Hague Service Convention did not authorize service by mail. The Texas Court of Appeals denied a motion for a rehearing en banc, and the Supreme Court of Texas denied review.

Red = needs to be paraphrased

Will add information on the history of the case.

The parties in this case are the petitioner, a corporation called Water Splash, Inc. which is based based in New York, and respondent Tara Menon, a one time sales rep for Water Splash.

service of process by mail is never permitted under Article 10(a), because the relevant provision uses the word “send” instead of “serve.”

Sources

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/argument-analysis-court-dives-water-splash/

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/16-254-cert-petition.pdf

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/16-254

https://static.lettersblogatory.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2AC.pdf

https://lettersblogatory.com/category/water-splash/

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/argument-preview-legal-interpretation-unconventional-context/

CapitalCapybara (talk) (Contrib)