Tinicum Properties Associates v. Garnett
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6564 (1992)

- Written by Catherine Cotovsky, JD
Facts
Tinicum Properties Associates (Tinicum) (plaintiff) sued William Garnett (defendant) to recover amounts owed from a lease agreement. The lease agreement was entered into in Pennsylvania, but at the time the lawsuit was filed, Garnett resided in Saudi Arabia, which was not a party to and thus not subject to the provisions of the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Convention). After unsuccessfully attempting to serve Garnett in Saudia Arabia by mail and through Garnett’s attorney, Tinicum sought assistance from the United States Embassy in Saudi Arabia, Garnett’s employer, and local Saudi Arabian attorneys and process servers to no avail. Despite not having been effectively served, a letter from Garnett to Tinicum’s attorney indicated that Garnett was aware of Tinicum’s lawsuit. Tinicum moved for an order from the court specifying a special service-of-process method for serving Garnett that would comply with both due process and federal rules of civil procedure.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 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.


