Airborne America, Inc. v. Kenway Composites
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Airborne America, Inc. filed an ex parte application for an order permitting service of process on Defendant Hill & Smith Holdings, PLC in the United Kingdom via international mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). The Court granted the application, directing service via international mail with return receipt requested and ordering the filing of a proof of service.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant of Ex Parte Application for Order re: Service on Defendant Hill & Smith Holdings, PLC Pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3)“Therefore, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Application. The Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to serve the summons and complaint on Defendant Hill & Smith via international mail, return receipt requested at the address below” | agree with court The court correctly applied the discretionary standard for Rule 4(f)(3) service. It verified that the Hague Service Convention is applicable and that the United Kingdom has not objected to service by postal channels under Article 10(a). Because the proposed method of service (international mail) is not prohibited by an international agreement, the court's exercise of discretion to grant the application is legally sound. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate binding authority. It correctly identifies the discretionary nature of Rule 4(f)(3) service and confirms that the specific method requested (postal service) is permissible under the Hague Service Convention because the destination state (UK) has not objected under Article 10(a). The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order of this nature.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AIRBORNE AMERICA, INC., a Nevada Case No.: 20-cv-2208 JLS (BLM) corporation 12 ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER RE: 13 Plaintiff, SERVICE ON DEFENDANT HILL 14 v. & SMITH HOLDINGS, PLC PURSUANT TO RULE 4(f)(3) 15 KENWAY COMPOSITES, et al., 16 (ECF No. 20) Defendants. 17 18 19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Airborne America, Inc.’s Ex Parte Application 20 for Order re: Service on Defendant Hill & Smith Holdings, PLC Pursuant to FRCP 4(f)(3). 21 (“Appl.,” ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff has not been able to effectuate service on Defendant Hill 22 & Smith, an entity located in England. Appl. at 2. Plaintiff requests an order from this 23 Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) allowing Plaintiff to serve a copy 24 of the summons and complaint in this action on Defendant Hill & Smith via international 25 mail, return receipt requested. Id. at 3. 26 Rule 4(f)(3) affirmatively authorizes the federal district court to direct any form of 27 service that is not prohibited by an international agreement. “The decision whether to allow 28 alternative methods of serving process under Rule 4(f)(3) is committed to the ‘sound 1 || discretion of the district court.” Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 805 (9th Cir. 2004) 2 ||(quoting Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002)). 3 ||Compliance with the Hague Service Convention is mandatory when transmitting 4 ||documents for service abroad. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 5 || 694, 705 (1988). Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention provides that, if the State 6 || of destination does not object, the Hague Convention does not change “the freedom to send 7 || judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad.” The United Kingdom 8 not object to judicial documents being sent by international registered mail pursuant 9 ||to Article 10(a). See Brockmeyer, 383 F. 3d 798, 803 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing U.S. State 10 ||Dep’t, Judicial Assistance in the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, and 11 || Northern Ireland), in Selected Materials in Int'l Litig. & Arbitration, 689 PLI/Lit. 13, 325 12 ||(2003)). Therefore, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Application. 13 The Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to serve the summons and complaint on Defendant 14 || Hill & Smith via international mail, return receipt requested at the address below: 15 Hill & Smith Holdings PLC 16 Westhaven House Arleston Way 17 Shirley, Solihull, West Midlands 18 B90 4LH UNITED KINGDOM 19 20 Further, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff file a proof of service forthwith. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: February 26, 2021 . 23 ja Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 25 26 27 28