Cambria Co. v. Pental Granite & Marble, Inc. (D ... - Letters Blogatory

(Id.)
CASE 0:12-cv-00228-JRT-AJB Document 102 Filed 03/27/13 Page 10 of 26
2. To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, Defendant
Vinaconex Advanced Compound Stone Joint Stock Company
(“Vinaconex”) is a Vietnamese corporation with its principal place
of business at Vinaconex Building, Trung Hoa – Nhan Chinh Urban
Zone, Thanh Xuan District, Hanoi, Vietnam.
3. Vinaconex was duly served with the Summons and First Amended
Complaint on March 15, 2012. A copy of the Affidavit of Service
on Vinaconex is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
4. As of the present date, Vinaconex has failed to appear, answer or
otherwise respond to or defend this action within twenty-one days of
service as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The declaration attached a proof of service document, filled out by a process
server named Sim Mala on March 29, 2012. (Id., Ex. A.) Mala claimed to have served
the summons on March 15, 2012, on “Duong Trung (Security Guard who denied access),
who is designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of Vinaconex Advanced
Compound Stone Joint Stock Company.” (Id.) More specifically, the proof of service
document stated:
Service was made on Vinaconex Advanced Compound Stone Joint Stock
Company by handing the documents to Duong Trung (Security Guard who
denied me access and who advised me that company policy does not allow
for personal service on any Officer or staff). Service was made on
March 15, 2012, at 1:10 p.m. at the corporate address of Defendant of
Vinaconex Building, Trung Hoa – Nhan Chinh Urban Zone, Thanh Xuan
District, Hanoi, Vietnam. Copies of the same documents were mailed to
the Defendant on 03/15/2012. Documents served: Summons and First
Amended Complaint.
(Id.) Cambria attached no signed receipts from either the guard who was served or any
entity receiving the mail to Vicostone’s address. (See id.)
- 10 -