New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Service of Process: Rule 4(d) Does Not Impose Duty to Pay Costs on Foreign Party Who Declines to Accept Service — Sanctions: No FRAP 38 or § 1927 Sanctions for Appeal That Is Weak But Not Frivolous

Download PDF

Cox v. Koninklijke Philips, NV, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8688 (6th Cir. May 9, 2016):

Former employees at a glass and bulb manufacturing plant brought this action against their employer, Philips Electronics North America Corporation ("Philips"), and its Dutch parent company, Koninklijke Philips, N.V. ("KPNV"), for injuries arising from exposure to hazardous chemicals during their employment. The district court dismissed the employees' claims against KPNV for want of personal jurisdiction, dismissed their claims against Philips as statutorily barred, and declined to award them costs in serving KPNV [*2]  process. The employees appeal those rulings, while KPNV and Philips seek sanctions. We affirm the district court's order but decline to award sanctions.

I.

Philips's facility in Danville, Kentucky contained hazardous substances including asbestos, mercury, arsenic, lead, and PCB compounds. The employees sued Philips and KPNV for concealing or misrepresenting workplace dangers and deliberately exposing them to hazardous substances, causing physical and emotional injuries. They assert claims sounding in negligence, strict liability, negligent infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and fraudulent concealment.

After filing the initial complaint, the employees requested that KPNV--a Dutch holding company with no agent in the United States--allow its American-retained counsel to accept service of process on its behalf. KPNV refused. The employees served process internationally and then moved to recover the associated costs, arguing that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d) obligated KPNV to avoid unnecessary expenses. The court denied the motion, noting that Rule 4(d) imposes no duty on foreign parties.

While the employees' costs motion pended, KPNV moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. After an evidentiary [*3]  hearing, the court determined that preponderating evidence failed to show that KPNV's activities satisfied Kentucky's long-arm statute. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 454.210. Without a basis to exercise jurisdiction, the court granted KPNV's motion to dismiss.

Philips also moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the exclusive-remedy provision of the Kentucky Workers' Compensation Act (KWCA) barred the employees' claims. The employees countered that their claims either satisfied the KWCA's deliberate-intention exception or fell outside of its exclusive-remedy provision. The court initially granted Philips's motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing all but the employees' fraud claims as barred by the KWCA. Philips then moved for reconsideration, arguing that because the employees failed to allege that Philips misrepresented workplace dangers with the specific intent to harm, the KWCA also barred the fraud claims. Agreeing, the district court dismissed the remaining claims. This appeal followed.

II.

***

C. The Employees' Motion to Recover Costs for Serving Process

Employees appeal the district court's denial of its motion for costs incurred in serving KPNV process, maintaining that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d) obliged KPNV to accept service. Under that rule, courts must award costs "[i]f a defendant located within the United States fails, without good cause, to sign and return a waiver requested by a plaintiff located within the United States." Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2) (emphasis added). KPNV is located in the Netherlands; the rule imposed no obligation on it, and the district court committed no error in denying the employees' motion.

D. KPNV's and Philips's Motion for Sanctions

KPNV and Philips move for sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Rule 38 allows this court to award damages if appellants' "arguments essentially had no reasonable expectation of altering the [*12]  district court's judgment based on law or fact." B & H Med., L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc., 526 F.3d 257, 270 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Wilton Corp. v. Ashland Castings Corp., 188 F.3d 670, 677 (6th Cir. 1999)). Similarly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, this court may award costs if "an attorney kn[ew] or reasonably should [have] know[n] that a claim pursued [was] frivolous, or that his or her litigation tactics [would] needlessly obstruct the litigation of non-frivolous claims." Shepherd v. Wellman, 313 F.3d 963, 969 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Jones v. Cont'l Corp., 789 F.2d 1225, 1232 (6th Cir. 1986)). Though the employees' arguments proved unconvincing--with their service-of-process-costs argument being particularly weak--they are not frivolous.

III.

For the above reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's orders and DENY KPNV's and Philips's motion for sanctions.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

FRAP 38 Sanctions: An Appeal May Not Be “Wholly Without Merit” — And Therefore May Not Be Sanctionable — Even If Several of Appellant’s Arguments Are Frivolous; Soundness of Central Arguments May Dominate

Standing: An “Identifiable Trifle” Suffices — PSLRA/Rule 11: District Court Must Make Findings As to Compliance with Rule 11 Whether or Not Asked — Filing Securities Lawsuit to Obtain Immaterial Disclosures Presumptively Violative of Rule 11

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Frivolous Claims of Judicial Bias, Citing Non-Existent Cases/Sources, Inventing Quotes from Real Ones, And Exhibiting Inflammatory and Antagonistic Tone — Recusal: “Adverse Rulings Are Not Evidence of Bias” (Good Quote) — Critical Judicial Remarks Ordinarily Do Not Support A Claim of Bias — Circuit-Wide Filing Bar Until $5,000 Fine Paid

Court’s Inherent Power to Police the Conduct of Litigants and Attorneys Extends to Persons Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law Before Them

(1) Inherent Power Sanctions — Duty to Correct or Withdraw — Strategic Silence As Bad Faith — Failure to Advise Court of Absence of Diversity Jurisdiction for 15 Months for Strategic Reasons, Only “Pull[ing] Out The Diversity-Destroying Card” After Losing = “A Textbook Example of Bad Faith” — (2) Under Goodyear, The Court’s Fundamental Job Is to Decide Whether Fees Would Have Been Incurred Absent the Sanctioned Conduct — (3) Appellate Review: While Sanctions Orders Are Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion, A Finding of Bad Faith Is Reviewed for Clear Error — (4) When There Are Two Permissible Views of The Evidence, The Factfinder’s Choice Between Them Cannot Be Clearly Erroneous — (5) “A District Court Is Not Required To Consider Irrelevant Evidence” — (Good Quotes)

Criminal Spoliation Can Be A Due Process Violation — Defendant Must Show That (1) The Evidence Had Exculpatory Value Before It Was Destroyed, (2) Defendant Is Unable to Obtain Comparable Evidence by Reasonable Means, and (3) Bad Faith Failure to Preserve

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

Inherent Power Sanctions — Untimeliness as Laches — Laches Properly Applied to Deny Sanctions Motion — Note Waived Defenses to Laches

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Substantial Justification or Harmless Error (Ninth Circuit Factors) — Erie: When State Supreme Court Has Not Squarely Addressed an Issue, Circuit Must Predict How It Would Rule, Using Intermediate Appellate Decisions, Decisions from Other Jurisdictions, Statutes, Treatises And Restatements for Guidance

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice