Rhodes v. J.P. Sauer & Sohn, Inc., Sig Arms, Inc.
United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
98 F. Supp. 2d 746 (2000)

- Written by Catherine Cotovsky, JD
Facts
Charles Rhodes, Jr., and Judy Rhodes (plaintiffs) sued German corporation J.P. Sauer and Sohn, Inc. (Sauer) and Sauer’s U.S. subsidiary, Sig Arms, Inc. (Sig) (defendants) under the Louisiana Products Liability Act for injuries Charles sustained when a gun manufactured by Sauer and Sig malfunctioned. After filing their lawsuit, the Rhodeses attempted to serve process on Sauer by mailing a copy of the petition, which was written in English only, to Sauer’s office in Germany via private courier. Sauer moved to dismiss the lawsuit for insufficient service of process, arguing that the Rhodeses attempt of service did not comply with the provisions of the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Convention), which required translation of documents into German and that a request for service be made to the designated German central authority before process could be properly served. The Rhodeses conceded that the documents were untranslated and that service was not obtained through the German central authority, but the Rhodeses argued that service was still properly made because Sauer’s U.S.-based subsidiary, Sig, was properly served, thereby bestowing the court with jurisdiction over Sauer as well, pursuant to Louisiana statutes permitting service of process on a foreign parent corporation via its domestic subsidiary.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Little, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.