• January 28, 2011

Updates #2, 3 (January 28, 2011, February 2, 2011):  Caught.  (Defendant appears to have been unsuccessful in getting the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.) (They have now agreed not to contest service, in exchange for a stipulated extension of time to respond to the complaint.)

Update #1 (August 20, 2010):  For oenophiles,  here is the 77-page findings of fact/conclusions of law about bubbly by U.S. District Court Judge Joan Ericksen (D. Minn.) ]

As regular readers of Minnesota Litigator know, the “battle of the bubbly,” a lawsuit between high-end French Louis Roederer “Cristal” champagne and low-end Spanish J. Garcia Carrion “Cristalino” sparkling wine-like drink, has been fought out over the past four years in the U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota where Cristalino has not fared very well.

At one point (but not at the start), J. Garcia Carrion was represented by DLA Piper but some time before last August, Carrion and DLA Piper parted company.   Last August, DLA Piper sued J. Garcia Carrion.  Curiously, after litigating for three years and going to trial this winter in downtown Minneapolis earlier this year, J. Garcia Carrion now takes the position that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it…

Regardless of how that issue plays out, J. Garcia Carrion’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction is a lesson for litigators on the importance of following the complicated details of international service of process.

The brief is also interesting on the question of whether one can serve a person or entity with a lawsuit when they show up in a court for another lawsuit (brief answer (no surprise to experienced litigators): maybe).

Finally, can it be that the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota does not have personal jurisdiction over J. Garcia Carrion when it was sued in the District in another case, it admitted the Court had jurisdiction, and, in that other case, it did not move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction?  Seems like the challenge to the sufficiency of service of process is the more likely winner, though seeking “dismissal with prejudice” for insufficient service of process would seem to be a stretch…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *