04-2047 Nylok Corp. v. Fastener World Inc.

Listen to this article

“Because district courts need to be able to control their dockets, we have stated that the amount of time allowed for foreign service is not unlimited. See O’Rourke Bros. Inc. v. Nesbitt Burns, Inc., 201 F.3d 948, 952 (7th Cir. 2000) (expressing disagreement with Ninth Circuit view that under Rule 4(m), ‘there is apparently no time limit for [foreign] service’) (citing Lucas v. Natoli, 936 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1991)). If, for example, a plaintiff made no attempt to begin the process of foreign service within 120 days, it might be proper for a court to dismiss the claim. See id. at 951-52.

“Nylok, however, made every effort to serve the defendants in a timely manner. Two days after filing the complaint in this case, Nylok hired Ingalls and instructed her to take the steps necessary to effectuate service. The appropriate materials were sent to the authorized agencies in Taiwan and Korea 41 days later. The next step involved waiting for the agencies to forward the materials to the applicable Taiwanese and Korean judicial authorities who would then serve the defendants. Under this system, although Nylok took all of the necessary affirmative steps, it could not control the timing of service.”

Reversed and Remanded.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Conlon, J., Kanne, J.