关于【ai2020怎么快速复制元素到所有画板】，ai粘贴到所有画板，今天向乾小编给您分享一下，如果对您有所帮助别忘了关注本站哦。
内容导航：1、ai2020怎么快速复制元素到所有画板2、摊上了美国民事官司怎么办？关于四类稍纵即逝的管辖权相关的异议1、ai2020怎么快速复制元素到所有画板
在Adobe Illustrator中，将一个元素，快速地复制到所有地画板上，该怎么操作呢？下面我们就来看看详细的教程。
打开Adobe Illustrator CC2020，进入首页，点击左上角的【File】按钮。
在下拉列表中点击【New】。
在弹出的More Settings面板中，设置参数（如下图所示），点击右下方的【Creat Document】按钮。
在左侧的工具栏中点击【Rectangle Tool】->【Sttar Tool】。
绘制一个星形，并将其居中放置。
选中星形，点击【Edit】->【Copy】。
点击【Edit】->【Paste on All Artboards】。
这样就将一个星形快速复制到了所有画板上。
以上就是ai元素快速复制到所有画板的技巧，希望大家喜欢，请继续关注百科书网。
2、摊上了美国民事官司怎么办？关于四类稍纵即逝的管辖权相关的异议
文 | 张斌律师
编辑 | 律小圈
开篇语
自改革开放以来，美国市场因其容量大和商品定价相对高的优势，一直为中国出口型企业开拓的理想销售地之一，但很多商界人士对于美国的法律体系知之甚少或完全陌生，导致时常对交易风险预估不足并可能因此而摊上美国官司，美国民事诉讼通常分为四个阶段：
起诉或反诉和答辩（Pleadings）
案件事实调查阶段（Discovery）
开庭审理阶段（Trail）
上诉阶段（Appeal）
还有贯穿整个诉讼程序不同阶段的请求法院裁决的各种形式申请[1]（Motion）
以上看起来与我们雷同，实则天壤之别，一旦正式进入诉讼程序后，案件当事人就必须在法院的监督下严格按照法律履责和行权，否则不仅可能在案件事实上承担不利的认定，而且可能因违反法律的命令而被处罚款，更有甚者还可能被追究藐视法庭的刑事之责。 鉴于此，笔者将陆续推出介绍美国民事诉讼的系列文章，并在文章中穿插介绍相关的美国法院近期审理的涉国人商事案件，从而加深读者对具体制度的认识。
美国是联邦制国家，除联邦法院系统外，各州及联邦政府所在地的哥伦比亚特区均有自己独立的法院系统和民事诉讼程序。尽管在制度上各有差异，但原理是相通的，考虑到联邦法院系统涉国人的案件较多，笔者在本系列文章中大都会援引联邦法院的案例。
联邦法院联邦法院对案件类型的管辖权是有限的（subject-matter jurisdiction），主要包括两类民事案件：
一类为主张联邦法律权利的案件
（federal question cases）
另一类是异籍案件
（diversity of citizenship cases）
联邦法院对于异籍案件法律适用一般法则为：本着Erie 法则（来自于Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)的判例），在美国宪法和联邦法对案涉问题有规定的情况下，优先适用联邦法。在联邦法没有规定情况下，在实体法[2]上，适用审理的联邦法院所在州的法律。
本系列文章主要是从实务角度出发给从事对美投资贸易的商务人士一些有益的风险提示，不追求事无巨细的介绍每个美国诉讼制度，所探讨的议题将主要基于笔者实务中总结的经验教训和读者反馈的问题。
【备注】本系列文章中的尾注大都是针对文中所提及的相关法律问题而直接援引法院裁决文书中法官的意见及笔者的评论，目的是提供给有兴趣的同行进行扩展阅读，而非按惯常做法用于仅表明参考文献。
关于四类稍纵即逝的管辖权相关的异议
前言
诉状和美国法庭的传票（以下简称“程序文件”）的有效送达是各种诉讼权利义务的起算点，同时直接影响到被告的基本程序正当权利，因而，程序文件的送达须采用正式送达模式，当您在收到程序文件时，因事务繁忙，可能习惯性类比国内官司，以先放放没关系态度消极对待 ；或草率的看了下发件人竟然是对方当事人，认为这只是一封律师函；亦或是在电子邮箱中或网上交易平台对话栏发现这些文件，您认为没有法律效力而置之不理，无论前述哪种情形均有可能贻误了稍纵即逝的管辖权异议黄金窗口期。
本文将介绍美国民事官司中仅有一次性异议机会的四个管辖权抗辩权[3]，分别为
没有对人管辖权（Lack of jurisdiction over the person）
管辖地不合适（Improper venue or division）
程序文件不充分（insufficiency of process）
程序文件送达有瑕疵（Insufficiency of service of process）
在进入正文之前，笔者先提出几个问题，希望本文能够帮助读者解答这些疑问：
1、中国公司通过设立美国公司开展在美交易的方式能够避免中国公司被诉吗？
2、中国公司的高管在美国出差的过程中， 被送达程序文件有效吗？
3、协议里约定了美国以外的国家或地区法院为管辖法院，但原告在美国起诉，可以置之不理吗？
4、尚未被中国公司委托代理本案或未授权代为接受文件的美国律师收到程序文件有效吗？
5、美国的子公司收到起诉中国公司的程序文件有效吗？
正文
联邦法院获得对案件管辖权除在开篇语中提到的案件类型管辖权外， 尚需具备以下四个条件，无论哪个条件均需受到美国宪法第十四修正案正当程序条款（ Due Process Clause）的限制，这些条件是以被告在答辩前可以主张的抗辩权方式规定在联邦民事诉讼法Rule 12(b)(2)–(5)，被告除通过放弃传票和起诉书的正式送达以及行使对答辩状的法定修改权来赢得更多的抗辩时间外，须在传票和起诉状有效送达之日起21日内以裁决申请（Motion）或答辩的方式（Answer）提出不符合如下条件的抗辩，并作为对原告的起诉的首次回应，否则视为被告放弃该抗辩权。由此，被告如果不希望在美国诉讼的话，在收到程序文件后切记不能拖延或直接对案件事实进行答辩，应擅用Rule 12(b)驳回起诉裁决申请。
对人管辖权In personam jurisdiction
无论是联邦法院或是各州法院对案件被告必须享有管辖权，也就是说，联邦法院对人管辖权适用联邦法院所在州的对人管辖规则，各州除按照属地法则取得的一般对人管辖权（general personal jurisdiction）外，就本州对州域外的被告的民事诉讼管辖权问题还分别制定了长臂管辖法（long arm statute），由此取得的管辖权称为特定对人管辖权[4]（specific personal jurisdiction）。
1、特定对人管辖权
对被告行使特定管辖权除了需满足管辖法院所在州的长臂管辖法外，必须满足由International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310(1945)案所确定的合宪性审查三个标准：最低联系程度标准和公平标准（certain minimum contacts with [the State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice）以及关联性标准（obligations arise out of or are connected with the activities within the state），当被告提出特定对人管辖权异议的抗辩后，原告负有对所主张的特定管辖权承担证明责任。因合宪性标准非常重要但又较为复杂，笔者以单独一篇就特定管辖权的法律制度进行介绍。
2、一般对人管辖权
一般对人管辖权是指案件受理所在州对被告的民事案件有绝对管辖权，无论案件被告或案件事实是否与该州有关，包含以下五种情形：
（1）被告居住在案件受理法院所在州；
（2）被告同意；
（3）被告自愿出现在案件受理法院所在州时，起诉书和传票被送达到本人；
（4）起诉书和传票在案件受理法院所在州送达给被告的代理人；
（5）人格混同理论在管辖权中的运用。
此是一种比较特殊的情形：当国内公司与国内公司在美国的关联公司一并被起诉作为被告的情况下，在国内公司提起管辖权异议后，原告也可能以美国公司与国内公司之间人格混同为由，主张法院对国内公司的管辖权[5]，因原告在此阶段主张人格混同并非用于揭开公司面纱而达到追究混同者责任的目的，而仅用于证明法院对人格被告享有管辖权，因此证明标准相对较为宽松[6]。
尽管如此，因人格混同是公平救济手段，相较于法律救济，其对事实证据的要求很是严格，但由于案件尚未正式进入诉讼程序不能通过案件事实调查阶段[7]（Discovery）所赋予的手段来调查案件事实，故只能提出一些初步证据，法院在此情况下可能会准许原告管辖权调查的申请（笔者在注释中引述CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v. SYNTRONIC AB, et al., 21-cv-03610-SI.（ 2021）裁决中对以人格混同主张管辖权部分决定供读者参详[8]）
合适的管辖地proper venue
凡是法院对国内公司有对人管辖权，该管辖法院就是合适的管辖地，这是管辖地规定的兜底条款，由此，对人管辖权的异议是关键，而管辖地问题的重要性对于国内公司来说主要体现在协议管辖条款 （forum-selection clause）的约定和不方便审理的法院法则（Forum non conveniens）的运用上 。
1、协议管辖条款
合同的双方当事人可以预先约定，在发生纠纷时，由某个国家或地区的法院管辖；也可同时约定具体适用的法律，如果协议一方违反协议管辖条款在非协议法院起诉，协议相对方有权按照不方便审理的法院法则（如果约定的法院与起诉的法院不属于同一法院系统）申请法院强制起诉方履行该条款，联邦法院强烈支持执行协议管辖条款，除非该条款有以下三种非常特别的情况：
（1）因欺诈或显示公允而致使条款无效；
（2）违背协议法院所在地重要的公共政策
（3）执行协议管辖会给原告造成极其严重的困难和不便以至于实际上剥夺了原告在法院起诉的权利[9]。
2、不方便审理法院规则
如案件的中心在另一法院，由该法院审理比起原告起诉的法院更为合理，但由于该法院与原告起诉的法院不属同一法院系统，故不能通过转移的方式移送案件，原告起诉的法院只能采取驳回起诉[10]或暂时搁置的裁决。
法院在作出这项裁决时，必须综合考虑：诸如案件适用的法律、地区性争议在地区解决的诉求等公共因素；同时考察取得证据的方便程度、减少证人到庭的困难和费用、勘验现场的可行性以及其他各种使审判方便、快捷、节约的实际问题等便利当事人因素；还需要确认被告主张的法院是可行的和充分的，能够保证原告在此法院顺利启动诉讼程序。
当然，如果原被告双方之间有约定的协议管辖条款，除非出现上面提到的三种非常特别的情况，联邦法院会要求原告执行该条款[11]。为了保障原告的诉讼权利，法院在准许被告提出的驳回起诉裁决申请时，会要求被告放弃对约定法院的管辖权异议、原告的诉讼时效自启动本次诉讼开始重新计算、如果原告在约定法院被拒绝受理则原告有权重新提起本次诉讼（笔者在注释中援引UNITEDNET, LTD. and LEVI RUSSELL, v. TATA COMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, INC., TATA COMMUNICATIONS INDIA, LTD., TATA SONS PRIVATE, LTD., STEVEN LUCERO, and LATINGROUP, LLC, 1&21-cv-01081-KWR-JFR.（ 2022 ）裁决中对此事宜的决定供读者参详[12]）。
程序文件process
按照Rule 12(b)提起的对程序文件的抗辩，仅针对文件本身是否有问题提出的异议，譬如文件缺失、字迹难以辨认等表面瑕疵，一般不会被单独提出。但并不说诉状内容无足轻重，相反，诉状内容非常重要，被告可以针对诉状内容提出诸如因诉由未达到起诉标准而申请法院驳回起诉申请（Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss）、诉状删减申请（motion to strike）、简易判决的申请（motion for summary judgment）等阻止或中断诉讼程序。
程序文件是启动民事诉讼不可或缺的导火索，一旦被有效送达，被告就面临着背负诉累的风险，按照正当程序的要求，该文件必须按照法定的方式有效送达到被告，否则，被告会被不正当的剥夺程序性权利。而对于诉讼中的其他法律文件的送达，因诉讼各方均已知悉进入诉讼，允许采用邮递等便捷的传达方式进行非正式送达。
此外，被告可以自行选择放弃附带传票的方式进行正式送达的权利，放弃可以节约成本以及预留更多的时间进行答辩，在放弃正式送达的情况下，美国国内的送达应诉期由21天延长至60天，而对于国外的送达为90天期限。
程序文件的送达service of process
因送达直接关系到正当程序，无论是联邦政府还是各州均对送达的方式有着严格的要求，联邦民事诉讼法对于在美国境内的被告所规定的送达方式包括：直接送达（除当事人以外的、18周岁以上的第三人送达给被告，通常为快递员）、间接送达、向被告代理人的送达、以及受案法院所在州及送达地允许的送达方式。
对于程序文件给中国公司的送达较为复杂，联邦民诉法4(f)款规定了三种方式：
1、按照国际条约所约定的送达方式；
我国是《关于向国外送达民事或商事司法文书和司法外文书的海牙公约》的签约国，但反对该公约10条关于在缔约国进行送达的规定，由此，按照该公约，外国司法文书在中国送达的唯一方式是通过中央政府，由于此种方式耗时长，成本高，而且常常石沉大海，原告通常竭力通过发起裁决申请寻求诸如电子邮件等便捷的替代送达方式（Motion for Service by Alternate Means），在此情况下，法院会要求原告举证证明已经过勤勉善意的努力弄清被告的住所和以公约规定的方式向中国公司送达不能的事实[13]，包括举证证明采用以公约规定的方式向中国公司送达是困难的[14]或徒劳的主张[15]等，如原告替代送达裁决申请不能满足前述条件，通常会被法院驳回。
2、在没有相关国际送达协定或国际条约允许送达但未规定具体的送达方式的情况下，可以使用经过合理的考量可达到有效通知到被告的送达方式；
3、法院裁决的替代送达方式；
此三种方式没有优先顺位之分[16]，法院对于替代送达的具体方式有很大的自由裁量权[17]，只要不为公约所禁止和符合正当程序的要求，法院有权根据具体案件的特定情况裁决相适宜的送达方式[18]，正当程序的要求指：充分考虑到与送达及案件相关的所有具体情况下，经过合理的考量采用该送达方式可以有效的将提起的诉讼通知到被告和给被告提出抗辩的机会[19]。
替代送达方式主要包括如下几种类型：
电子邮件
对于在美国主要通过邮件或网上平台与客户进行沟通的中国电商，在被诉侵权的情况下，法院可能允许电子邮件作为替代送达方式[20]。
被告在美国的律师
加利福利亚州在几个判例中确认在特定的情况下，即便被告的美国律师[21]拒绝，也可以送达给该律师作为有效的替代送达方式[22]。
在美国的全资子公司
加利福利亚州在几个判例中确认：在特定的情况下，外国公司在加州的全资子公司视为外国公司的总经理，可以代表被告接受送达[23]。
特别注意事项
本着尽量保证题述事宜的完整性起见，笔者还是介绍一个极易混淆的例外情形：
首先需要明确的是，除仅就本文所述四个管辖权提起相关异议以外的任何就案件事实进行应诉的行为视为默认同意，按照一般对人管辖权处理。
其次，关于处理民事案件法院管辖权的一般原则为：凡是没有管辖权的法院所做出的裁决是无效的，根本原因在于违背了宪法正当程序条款的要求，而对于无效裁决是不能被其他州按照宪法充分信任条款（Full Faith and Credit Clause）的原则执行的，由此，我们可以清晰地看出管辖权在民事诉讼中的地位是非常重要的。
最后，特别情形指：如果被告在被有效送达程序文件后未做任何应诉行为，原告取得了法院的缺席（Default）或缺席判决（Default Judgment）后，如果审理的法院对被告没有对人管辖权，被告仍然有机会以缺乏对人管辖权为由提起撤销缺席或缺席判决申请，当然即便进入执行阶段，也可向执行法院提起不予执行的申请（"R"Best Produce, Inc. v. DiSpaio, 540 F.3d 115, 125 (2d Cir. 2008)案件中法官对此事宜的部分意见供各位参详[24]），因被告知晓自己在其他州被诉而选择不在当时提出管辖权异议是有过错的，故须对缺乏管辖权的主张承担证明责任[25]，不再由原告对有管辖权主张承担证明责任。
结束语
综上可知，无论中国公司通过何种途径收到了被起诉的程序文件都不能掉以轻心，首先，应调查情况判断其真实性和送达的有效性，凡是在国内收到的非通过海牙公约的送达（也就是通过法院送达），如果有效的话，一定有美国法院关于本案替代送达的裁决，其次，在被诉事实核实后，预判送达的有效性和管辖权异议的时限，并积极准备资料和文件，此外，如果送达方式有问题，即便原告证明被告知晓被诉的情况下，依然有权提出送达程序有瑕疵的抗辩，从而争取更多的应诉时间，最后，如果不希望在美国诉讼，首次应诉通常以裁决申请的形式提出，需要切记的是，如果有必要提起本文所提到的四个管辖，则需要一次性在裁决申请中提出，否则视为放弃，此外，即便没有应诉而被缺席判决，依然有机会以审理法院没有管辖权为由主张裁决无效。
至于在美国设立公司是否可以有效作为中国公司的防火墙问题，笔者仅建议美国公司应尽量规范化独立运营和遵从公司法所要求的治理程序，方能有效降低在管辖权异议裁判阶段被人格否定风险。
其实，对人管辖权尤其是特定对人管辖权异议基本是每个诉中国公司案件的主战场，而且据过往的合同纠纷类案件显示，只要积极应对和妥当处理，最终获得法院支持的概率还是很高，有鉴于此，笔者下篇将专篇介绍特定对人管辖权的法则及其适用。
注释：
[1]有的人称其为“动议”，因有些拗口，不赞同此叫法，其实，与国内民诉过程中当事人所提请法院进行裁定和决定的申请属同一概念，不同点在于美国法院的裁决申请更为宽泛细致和严格的时效性，目的是为了保障诉讼的有序高效进行和督促当事人双方诚信履行诉讼权利义务，由此笔者在文中一律以“裁决申请”相称。
[2]Four issues are clearly “substantive”: (1) elements of a claim or defense, (2) statute of limitations, (3) rules for tolling statutes of limitations, and (4) conflict (or choice) of law rules.
[3]英美法系的诉讼模式采用的是当事人主义，无论是刑事或民事案件，一般来说，起诉方或反诉方对自己的诉讼请求所要求的法定要件承担初步证明责任（prima facie case）,而对于被告来说，其可以对原告所提证据未能达到证明要求或提出相反证据否定原告提供的证据而提起异议，此为一般抗辩权（ general defense ），此外，被告还享有法定的积极抗辩权（affirmative defense），法律对于不同的案由规定了不同的肯定性抗辩权，譬如对于是否为有效合同的肯定性抗辩权包括违反法律强制性规定或重要的公共良俗、虚假陈述或欺诈、胁迫或不正当影响、显示公允等，被告对此类特定抗辩权负有证明责任，一旦特定抗辩权被证明成立，可以免除或减轻被告的责任。本文中所述管辖权抗辩属一般抗辩权，故而也可以称之为管辖权异议。最后，笔者再啰嗦一句，无论是英美法系的当事人主义还是大陆法系的职权主义诉讼模式没有优劣之分，所追求的最终目的都是查明案件事实，精准适用法律，寻求实现公平正义的判决结果，某种程度上，英美法系通过当事人极其代理律师实现对大陆法系法官依职权应该完成的事实调查和法律的适用以及大部分自由心证的推演，两大法系的主流国家经过过去多年的相互借鉴融合程度相当高。
[4]不赞同称呼为“特殊对人管辖权”，因该类管辖权的取得直接来源于被告与管辖法院所在州之间特定的联系，故笔者认为“特定对人管辖权”更为贴切。
[5]When no discovery has taken place, however, a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction — through "legally sufficient allegations" — to survive a Rule 12(b)(2) motion. In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 376 F.Supp.2d 449, 452 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). The Court will construe "all pleadings and affidavits in the light most favorable to the plaintiff" and resolve "all doubts in the plaintiff's favor." Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha, 609 F.3d 30, 34 (2d Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). On the other hand, the Court need not accept either party's legal conclusions as true, nor will it draw "argumentative inferences" in either party's favor. See Licci ex rel. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 673 F.3d 50, 59 (2d Cir. 2012).
[6]the standard for establishing that entities are alter egos is "relaxed where the alter ego theory is used not to impose liability, but merely to establish jurisdiction."In re Commodity Exch., Inc., 213 F. Supp. 3d 631, 681 (S.D.N.Y. 2016).
[7]有人称其为证据开示程序，其实并不准确，因通过此阶段所调查的事实范围远超过可在庭审中出示的证据（admissible evidence），更并不必提可采信的定案证据，此阶段是法律赋予当事人通过法定的方法调查案件事实的过程，主要方法包括: 书面询问对方当事人(interrogatories）、庭外诘问证人 (deposition）、医疗检查（medical examinations）、对事实承认的请求 (requests for admissions）以及出示和现场检查文件的请求 (requests for production），除庭外诘问证人和出示和现场检查文件的请求还可被用于从第三方获取案件事实外，其余方法仅能够被适用于案件当事人。该阶段案件事实调查的范围是：经过合理的考量通过该事实可以调查出可在法庭出示的证据，可见，该阶段调查事实的范围比可在法庭出示的证据宽泛的多，也就是说，被调查对象不得以被调查的事实不能作为证据在法庭出示为由而拒绝配合调查。当事人的调查权利是有法院强制力作保障的，任何一方或被调查的第三方不配合调查，经调查方自行协商未果的情况下，可以请求法院向被调查方下达强制配合案件事实调查的裁决，如若被调查方违背法院的裁决，除承担藐视法庭的责任外，还需承担法院做出相应的不利案件事实推定或结果的制裁。本阶段在民事诉讼程序中耗时最长，而且超过98%的案件在此阶段通过裁决请求或和解的方式得到解决，真正能够进入到开庭审理阶段的案件比例不到2%。
[8]plaintiff alleges all three defendants act as a single enterprise, have overlapping officers and employees, commingle their assets through intercompany accounts, and are represented by the same counsel. FAC at ¶¶ 6-26; Dkt. No. 22-1 (Mot. for Alternative Service); Dkt. No. 31. Syntronic's website shows Syntronic Sweden refers to Syntronic Beijing as one of its "branches" in China and "Syntronic has operations in Sweden, USA...China." Dkt. Nos. 43-18, 43-19. Several of Syntronic Sweden's directors serve on the board for Syntronic USA and Syntronic Beijing and Björn Jansson is identified as a "Group CEO." FAC at ¶ 8, Dkt. Nos. 22-1, 22-11, 22-12, 22-13. Plaintiff alleges the "@syntronic.com" domain is used by Syntronic Sweden, Syntronic Beijing, and Syntronic USA. FAC at ¶¶ 116-118.
While these facts are not determinative of plaintiff's alter ego theory, they raise serious questions about how the defendants are related. The Court finds plaintiff has raised enough of a question regarding whether defendants Syntronic Beijing, Syntronic Sweden, and Syntronic USA are alter egos to warrant further discovery. Therefore, the Court grants plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery on the issue of alter ego and to determine if the Court has genera jurisdiction over defendants Syntronic Beijing and Syntronic Sweden.
[9]In Atlantic Marine, the Supreme Court established the general rule that "a district court should transfer the case unless extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties clearly disfavor a transfer." Id. At 52.[1] The Court did not define the term "extraordinary circumstances" in Atlantic Marine, and so we looked to its earlier decision in M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972) for guidance. See Advanced China Healthcare, 901 F.3d at 1088; see also Gemini Techs., Inc. v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 931 F.3d 911, 914-15 (9th Cir. 2019). From Bremen, we identified three general principles that establish extraordinary circumstances, namely: (1) when the forum-selection clause is invalid because of "fraud or overreaching," (2) when enforcement of the clause "would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which suit is brought, whether declared by statute or by judicial decision," or (3) when the forum would be "so gravely difficult and inconvenient" that the plaintiff "will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court." Advanced China Healthcare, 901 F.3d at 1088 (quoting Bremen, 407 U.S. at 15, 18).
[10]Forum non conveniens "permits a court to dismiss a case when an adequate alternative forum exists in a different judicial system and there is no mechanism by which the case may be transferred." Kelvion, Inc. v. PetroChina Canada Ltd., 918 F.3d 1088, 1091 (10th Cir. 2019).
[11]"[T]he appropriate way to enforce a forum-selection clause pointing to a state or foreign forum is through the doctrine of forum non conveniens." Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 60 (2013). In a "typical case not involving a forum-selection clause," courts evaluate factors such as convenience of the parties when conducting a forum non conveniens analysis. Id. at 62-63. "The calculus changes, however, when the parties' contract contains a valid forumselection clause, which `represents the parties' agreement as to the most proper forum.'" Id. at 63 (quoting Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 31 (1988)). A forum-selection clause, therefore, creates a strong presumption in favor of transferring a case, and the plaintiff "bears the burden" to establish that transfer is unwarranted. Id.
[12]IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's dismissal from this case is subject to the following conditions: 1. Defendant Tata Communications America, Inc. shall agree to submit to and accept the exercise of jurisdiction of the Courts of England and Wales in any subsequent United Kingdom proceeding on these matters. 2. Defendant Tata Communications America, Inc. shall waive any statute of limitations defenses that have arisen since the commencement of this action. 3. The claims against Defendant Tata Communications America, Inc. may be reinstated in the event that jurisdiction in the English courts is declined.
[13] "`(a) there is no international agreement prohibiting service by the proposed method; (b) the proposed method of service is reasonably calculated to provide the defendant notice; and (c) [plaintiffs] have made a good faith effort to locate and serve defendants by traditional means.'" Vaswani, Inc., 2021 WL 1541071, at *1 (quoting Vanderhoef, 2019 WL 6337908, at *2).
[14]"it is helpful to plaintiff's case to show some measure of difficulty in effecting service by usual means." Id. (citing Vanleeuwen v. Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc., No. 11-09495, 2012 WL 5992134, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2012)).
[15]"federal courts have permitted alternative means of service in cases where it would be `futile' to attempt to comply with Hague Convention approved means of service."[6] Dubovoy, 2016 WL 7217607, at *2 (citing Henry F. Teichmann, Inc. v. Caspian Flat Glass OJSC, No. 13-00458, 2013 WL 1644808, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 2013)).
[16]Rule 4(f) does not create a hierarchy of preferred methods of service, and parties are not required to comply with Rule 4(f)(1) or (2) before seeking service under Rule 4(f)(3). See Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, the relevant inquiry for service under Rule 4(f)(3) is whether the requested method of service is prohibited by international agreement, including the Hague Convention. Compañía de Inversiones Mercantiles, S.A. v. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua S.A.B. de C.V., 970 F.3d 1269, 1294 (10th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, No. 20-1033, 2021 WL 2519105 (U.S. June 21, 2021).
[17]"The Court `is afforded wide discretion when ordering service of process under Rule 4(f)(3).'" U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Vuuzle Media Corp., No. 21-01226, 2021 WL 1731947, at *1 (D.N.J. May 3, 2021) (quoting U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Secure Cap. Funding Corp., No. 11-00916, 2011 WL 13143141, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 2011)).
[18]"Ultimately, `[t]he appropriate alternative service will vary depending upon the particular circumstances of the case,' so long as it is not prohibited by international agreement and comports with due process." Vuuzle Media Corp., 2021 WL 1731947, at *2 (quoting Bidonthecity.com LLC v. Halverston Holdings Ltd., No. 12-09258, 2014 WL 1331046, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2014)).
[19]To comport with due process, the method of service must be "reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950).
[20]ADT Sec. Servs., Inc. v. Sec. One Int'l, Inc., No. 11-cv-05149, 2012 WL 3580670, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2012) (holding that service by email to "the contact email address that is listed on [the defendant's] website" was "not only reasonably calculated to provide actual notice . . . but the method most likely to apprise [defendants] of this action"); Cisco Sys., Inc., 2020 WL 5199434, at *15 (finding service on Chinese defendants by email proper when the defendants "operate Internet-based businesses trafficking in counterfeit . . . products, . . . provide email addresses for communication, and . . . ultimately negotiated and consummated transactions for sale of the infringing products . . . via email").
[21]Rio Props., 284 F.3d at 1017 (finding service upon U.S.-based attorney was appropriate "because he had been specifically consulted by [Defendant] regarding this lawsuit," "[h]e knew of [Defendant's] legal positions and it seems clear that he was in contact with [Defendant] in Costa Rica."); Prods. & Ventures Int'l, 2017 WL 1378532, at *4 ("Hogan Lovells' close connection to the Foreign Defendants would render substituted service on the Foreign Defendants through Hogan Lovells as `reasonably calculated' to provide the same with sufficient notice of the action and an opportunity to object."); Brown, 285 F.R.D. at 565-66 ("Due process does not require that the individuals served on behalf of foreign defendants have represented them or been authorized to accept service on their behalf."); In re LDK Solar Sec. Litig., 2008 WL 2415186, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2008) (approving Rule 4(f)(3) service when, "plaintiffs have shown the difficulty of serving the unserved defendants located abroad" and "[d]efense counsel have refused to accept service on behalf of the unserved defendants on the ground that they do not represent the international defendants.").
[22]"Courts in the Ninth Circuit have ordered service through United States-based counsel even when counsel has refused to accept service on the ground that they do not represent the international defendants." Prods. & Ventures Int'l v. Axus Stationary (Shanghai) Ltd., 2017 WL 1378532, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2017) (citing Brown, 285 F.R.D. at 566).
[23]The court in Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 WL 124093 at *3, addressed service on Gree USA under California law and stated in relevant part that "service on a foreign corporation is valid if a copy of any process is delivered by hand `to any officer of the corporation or its general manager in this state.'" Cal. Corp. Code §2110; and see, SKC Kolon PI, Inc. v. Kaneka Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153096, 2010 WL 11553177, at *2 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 18, 2010). California law broadly defines "general manager" to include "any agent of the corporation of sufficient character and rank to make it reasonably certain that the defendant will be apprised of the service made." Falco v. Nissan North America, Inc., 987 F. Supp. 2d 1071, 1074 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Thus, "service upon a `domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation' is sufficient to qualify as service upon a general manager where the domestic subsidiary is performing the functions that the foreign corporation would otherwise be required to undertake on its own." Id.
[24]It is well settled that the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction can be waived, see Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 703-05, 102 S.Ct. 2099, 72 L.Ed.2d 492 (1982), and, as to a defendant appearing in an action, the defense is deemed waived if not raised by motion before trial, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(1). However, "[a] judgment ... is void ... if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction... of the parties." In re Texlon Corp., 596 F.2d 1092, 1099 (2d Cir.1979) (citation omitted); see 11 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2862, at 326-27 & n. 10 (2d ed. 1995 & Supp.2008) (collecting cases).
Pertinent to this appeal, it is also well settled that voidness of a judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction can be asserted on a collateral challenge after entry of a default judgment. "A defendant is always free to ignore the judicial proceedings, risk a default judgment, and then challenge that judgment on jurisdictional grounds." Insurance Corp. of Ireland, 456 U.S. at 706, 102 S.Ct. 2099; Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Ass'n, 283 U.S. 522, 525, 51 S.Ct. 517, 75 L.Ed. 1244 (1931). And this rule applies even as to a defendant, moving under Rule 60(b)(4), who received notice of the original lawsuit through service of process. See Sloss Industries Corp. v. Eurisol, 488 F.3d 922, 924-25 (11th Cir.2007); Bally Export Co. v. Balicar, Ltd., 804 F.2d 398, 400-01 (7th Cir.1986); Covington Industries, Inc. v. Resintex A.G., 629 F.2d 730 (2d Cir.1980). See also Burda Media, Inc. v. Viertel, 417 F.3d 292, 298-99 (2d Cir.2005) (merits of a defendant's claim of insufficient service of process considered on appeal from denial of Rule 60(b)(4) motion even though defendant had received actual notice of the action).
It might seem anomalous that an appearing party is deemed to waive lack of personal jurisdiction by not properly asserting it in a timely motion or pleading, but a non-appearing party with notice may suffer a default judgment and later seek relief under Rule 60(b)(4). Apart from juridical fixation on the concept of voidness, the unstated rationale for the distinction is very likely that a non-appearing defendant, even with notice, should be spared the burden of defending in a distant forum and a plaintiff should be careful to join only those defendants as to whom personal jurisdiction can successfully be established in the original action. Of course, the non-appearing defendant might some day wish to bring a subsequent challenge to the default judgment in the distant forum where it was entered, but will usually be permitted to present the challenge defensively, see Hazen Research, Inc. v. Omega Minerals, Inc., 497 F.2d 151, 153 (5th Cir.1974), or offensively, see Covington Industries, 629 F.2d at 733, in a local forum if the judgment is sought to be enforced against him or his property. Such enforcement, however, is not inevitable, and may never occur if the judgment can be satisfied against other jointly liable defendants.
[25[But in a collateral challenge to a default judgment under Rule 60(b)(4), the burden of establishing lack of personal jurisdiction is properly placed on a defendant who had notice of the original lawsuit. See Bally Export, 804 F.2d at 401; Hazen Research, 497 F.2d at 154. Although the defaulting defendant has the opportunity to contest personal jurisdiction long after the default judgment, a defaulting defendant with notice of the action should bear the risk of non-persuasion on this issue since it will normally have greater access to relevant evidence often difficult to assemble after the passage of time. See generally Ariel Waldman, Comment, Allocating the Burden of Proof in Rule 60(b)(4) Motions to Vacate a Default Judgment for Lack of Jurisdiction, 68 U. Chi. L.Rev. 521, 529-36 (2001) (collecting cases and recommending that burden remain with plaintiff). In the analogous context of a Rule 60(b)(4) motion challenging sufficiency of service of process, we have held that the defendant bears the burden of proving that service of process was insufficient. See Burda Media, Inc., 417 F.3d at 299.
本文关键词：ai一个画板,多个图片怎么导出来呢，ai如何快速复制画板，ai画板怎么导出每个画板，ai粘贴到所有画板，ai中怎么导出多个画板。这就是关于《ai2020怎么快速复制元素到所有画板，ai粘贴到所有画板（关于四类稍纵即逝的管辖权相关的异议）》的所有内容，希望对您能有所帮助！