Legal Opinion
Dee-K Enterprises Inc. v. Heveafil Sdn. Bhd.
District Court, E.D. Virginia
Decided July 23, 1997No. Civil Action No. 97-556-APublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ELLIS, District Judge.
Plaintiff in this international antitrust case elected to serve Indonesian and Malaysian corporate defendants in their respective countries by a courier service. In both Malaysia and Indonesia, this is not one of the modes of serving process prescribed by law. Thus, a threshold question presented is whether a mode of service of process that is not prescribed by foreign law is “prohibited” by that law within the meaning of Rule 4(f)(2)(C).
I
On April 17, 1997, plaintiff Dee-K Enterprises Inc. (“Dee-K”) filed a complaint, on behalf of itself and parties…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. Nordic Village, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Omni Capital International, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Illinois Brick Co. v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- The Federal Insurance Company v. Lake Shore Inc. Peterson Builders, Incorporated, and American Ship Management, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1989
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Ronald B. Brockmeyer Eromedia, Ltd. v. David C. May v. Marquis Publications, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Resource Ventures, Inc. v. Resources Management International, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1999
- Nikbin v. Islamic Republic of IranDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2007
- Dee-K Enterprises, Inc. v. Heveafil Sdn. Bhd.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1997
- In re Hawker Beechcraft, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2013
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.