How’s this for odd? Amazon lists the CD for five bucks and the vinyl for seventy.

Billy Joel released The Stranger album in 1977, just as I was starting the first grade.  It wasn’t until I was in high school that this album truly became one of my favorites, and it remains so decades later.  Not least because the varied tracks on it pop up in conversation so frequently.

The best thing a potential client could ever say to me– aside from “shut up and take my money”– is “yeah, we could probably figure this out on our own, but we’d rather get it right the first time.”  Cue the soundtrack of my youth.

It’s applicable in Hague Service Convention usage because, even though you might get a second bite at the apple following a curable defect, you may not know there’s a problem until a year or two down the road.  That makes for irate clients and grumpy judges.

Of course, it sometimes can’t be helped.  Capricious foreign officials sometimes offer pretextual reasons for rejecting Hague Requests.  Discrete little details may derail an effort to serve a defendant with no notice– problems that blindside lawyers seemingly out of nowhere.

But a little diligent effort goes a long way.  Doing it yourself isn’t always a bad idea– but pretty frequently, you can be blindsided by a seemingly inconsequential detail. In short, get help.  Hire somebody to help you.

I don’t mean this to be sales-pitchy.  Really.  [The sales pitches are here and here.]

But practical reality necessitates bringing in some added expertise in many cases.  Just as a personal injury lawyer shouldn’t handle her own traffic ticket, or a tax attorney shouldn’t file his own contested divorce, plaintiffs’ counsel of all stripes should be wary of handling overseas service alone.  If you don’t hire me, consult some other attorney who does this sort of thing regularly.  Your client depends on your wisdom, and that might just mean bringing in some help with a nuanced area of practice.

 

 

I always thought the back cover was better, because “bottle o’ red…”
LaurMG via Wikimedia Commons.

Seriously.  It doesn’t exist.

At least, not in the common law world.  Sure, in civil law jurisdictions it might, depending on your definition of informality, but in those places, “informal” is a term of art, and it relies entirely on the defendant’s willingness to play nice with others.  Let’s be honest here– if the defendant were going to play nice, then he’d just waive and service wouldn’t be necessary anyway, formalities be damned.

The very nature of serving process– particularly from a due process perspective– requires at least a minimum of formalism.  Mullane says so.  Some examples:

  • Plaintiff’s counsel hires an agent or a sheriff’s deputy to hand documents to a defendant’s wife at their home.
  • An agent or sheriff’s deputy lays documents on the desk of a registered agent and then swears out an affidavit.
  • Plaintiff’s counsel specifically requests that the Clerk dispatch a mailer, requiring a signed receipt, in accordance with Rule 4(f)(2)(C)(ii).*
  • An absolute last resort: counsel publishes an advertisement in the legal notices section of the local paper,** if for no other reason than to “put the world on notice.”

All of these have some element of formality involved.

When your process server tells you that they can just have your overseas defendant served informally, they don’t know what they’re talking about.  What they really mean is that, depending on the foreign country, you may be able to avoid involving a foreign government ministry by engaging a “competent person” under Article 10 of the 1965 Hague Service Convention.  It’s still formal, and if they don’t recognize that, be afraid.

* I still argue that mail service is a bad idea.  That doesn’t make it informal.

** Yes, yes, I know.  Nobody reads the legal notices section in the paper anymore.  To be sure, nobody reads THE PAPER anymore.  Even in 1950, service by publication was a legal fiction, and that was one of the Mullane decision’s biggest issues.

Brandon Grasley via Wikimedia Commons.

[Details have been changed to protect the innocent.  Some variant of this story happens routinely— at least every couple of months.]

A few weeks ago, I received a Hague Certificate following a request that I’d sent on a client’s behalf to a foreign Central Authority. Essentially, it said, hey, Aaron, thanks for playing– we served your defendant on February 30th, so go get ’em.  My client filed it in fairly short order and all seemed to be well.*

Opposing Counsel filed a responsive motion, asking the court to reject the proof provided by the foreign Central Authority, insisting that only an affidavit would do, and that the Hague Certificate that we’d filed was insufficient under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  O.C. cited Rule 4(l)(1), which is crystal clear that an affidavit is required to demonstrate proper service.

(l) Proving Service.

(1) Affidavit Required. Unless service is waived, proof of service must be made to the court. Except for service by a United States marshal or deputy marshal, proof must be by the server’s affidavit.

It’s crystal clear if you stop reading there.

My client asked me whether I thought she should respond gently & diplomatically, or with a bit of vitriol.

Oh, vitriol, for sure, said I.  Tell opposing counsel that he should READ THE ENTIRE RULE.**  Because, oops…

(l) Proving Service.

(1) Affidavit Required. Unless service is waived, proof of service must be made to the court. Except for service by a United States marshal or deputy marshal, proof must be by the server’s affidavit.

(2) Service Outside the United States. Service not within any judicial district of the United States must be proved as follows:

(A) if made under Rule 4(f)(1), as provided in the applicable treaty or convention; or

(B) if made under Rule 4(f)(2) or (f)(3), by a receipt signed by the addressee, or by other evidence satisfying the court that the summons and complaint were delivered to the addressee.

(I put that stuff in bold because, good grief, man, don’t be daft.)

Even if Rule 4(l)(2)(A) didn’t specifically go there (or if state rules mandate a particular form and ignore “Outside the United States” altogether), the text of the Hague Service Convention sets out the requirements anyway and, thanks to that pesky old Supremacy Clause, that’s pretty much it.  To suggest otherwise is… well, silly.

Here’s what the Convention says about proof, in Article 6:

The Central Authority of the State addressed or any authority which it may have designated for that purpose, shall complete a certificate in the form of the model annexed to the present Convention.

The certificate shall state that the document has been served and shall include the method, the place and the date of service and the person to whom the document was delivered. If the document has not been served, the certificate shall set out the reasons which have prevented service.

(Emphasis mine again.)  Pretty straightforward, huh?

Defense counsel, when I said to always question the validity of Hague requests, I meant to go deeper on the U.S. side– make sure that the request is valid.  Stop making arguments that just make your work look slipshod.  Even if you’re in state court, where the rules aren’t so abundantly clear, the Supremacy Clause still punches you in the throat, so just… stop it.

* All of my clients are lawyers.

** A lesson from law school that we often forget:  keep reading.  This is particularly applicable with regard to Rule 4(m) and service outside the U.S.  If the clerk’s office tells you the case is going to be dismissed because you haven’t effected service by the 90-day deadline in 4(m), tell them to read the entire rule.

Yabba. Dabba. Doo.

“The defendant works at…”

Hmm.  Do you happen to have a home address?

“No, just his office.”

Let’s hope he’s there.  And that we can get in the door…

That exchange happens between lawyers and process servers daily.  And it’s a challenge, because defendants can’t be served by substitution at their place of business.  Under most courts’ rules, they can be “sub-served” at home, usually by delivery of the documents to “someone of suitable age and discretion who resides there” or some variation on that theme.*  In other words, even if Fred isn’t home, you can still effectively serve him by handing the summons & complaint to Wilma.  (Pebbles is just a toddler, and doesn’t really talk.  Besides, she’s not even tall enough to answer the door yet.)

Likewise defendant Barney.  He’s not home, but if Betty answers the door, you’re on solid ground.  (Avoid Bam-Bam.  That kid’s dangerous.)

But you can’t get Fred or Barney by handing the docs to grumpy Mr. Slate down at the gravel pit.  If they’re having lunch down at the Water Buffalo Lodge when your stone tablet server rolls up, you’re out of luck– unless the server knows the secret handshake.

I’ll stop with the Flintstones analogy, but notice something… I haven’t once mentioned the Hague Service Convention, which is the centerpiece of this blog and the primary reason for its existence. Why?  Because the challenge is the same wherever you go.

The story is critical going across borders, because the conversation up above happens more frequently between me and my clients than you can imagine.  It’s even more important to have a home address for defendants offshore, for several reasons:

  1. Officials in civil law jurisdictions are more sensitive to defendants’ privacy than are common law process servers.  As such, they prefer to serve at a residential address if for no other reason than to save Fred & Barney some embarrassment.
  2. Just like here in the U.S. and Canada, if the defendant isn’t actually at the workplace when the serving officer shows up, that officer isn’t going to just sit in the lobby and wait.  Even your local process server won’t do that without an extraordinary run-up in costs.
  3. You don’t get to dictate to foreign authorities how & when to serve.  You can only indicate where the defendant can be found.  In the U.S. and Canada, we can direct our process servers to go back and try again or to attempt a different address, but we don’t have that luxury “over there”.  Simply put, you’re not going to tell a Swiss bailiff or Chinese court official how to execute his duties.  It just doesn’t work that way.**
  4. The “someone of suitable age and discretion” requirement may not even pop up.  In some jurisdictions, the docs can just be slid into the mail slot, or the officer will slap a Post-It note on the door telling the defendant to come and get his documents at the Post Office or local police station!

It’s a harsh reality, but this is a problem both at home and abroad.  Hague rules don’t mitigate the problem.  If anything the problem is exacerbated.  If you can get a home address, do it.  It may not be the end of the world if you can’t, but a home always presents better odds.

* Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(B), in case you’re curious.

** It’s truly baffling– clients routinely say to me (with a straight face, no less!) to “just tell the Chinese to (do XYZ…).”  I even had opposing counsel make that argument in a hearing once.  The judge audibly giggled.  IT DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY, FOLKS.

Author’s Note:  This post was almost about The Munsters, but Fred is just funnier than Herman.

Then again…

Herman Munster went to law school?!
Federal Courthouse, Sioux City, Iowa. I worked in that building for three years back in the Ice Age. (GSA Image)

Y’all, if you know you’re going to be removed, just initiate the case in federal court to begin with.  It’ll save everybody involved a whole bunch of time and headache.

Lots of plaintiffs’ lawyers gasp when I say that.  They look at me like I have three heads.

  • “Are you nuts?”
  • “Oh, you’re a comedian now?”
  • “Clearly, you’re an idiot.”

I certainly understand why they react that way.  State juries are kinder to plaintiffs, generally speaking, than federal juries.  And it makes perfect sense to go where your odds of success are better.  But the reality is, if you’re going to get yanked to a federal venue anyway, you’re a whole lot farther ahead to file there at the outset.

Look, I’m an AAJ member for a reason.  I’m a plaintiffs’ guy.  I like holding defense lawyers’ feet to the fire.  A huge part of what motivates me in this business is playing a small part in making injured parties whole, whether that injury is physical/emotional, financial, or constitutional.  And nine times out of ten, I’ll agree with you that state court is a better place to be than 40 Foley Square.

But purely from a service of process perspective, when you have offshore defendants, it’s a whole lot cheaper, a whole lot easier, and a whole lot less complex to operate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.  Several reasons:

  1. Time.  You’ve got a friend in 4(m).
  2. Certainty.  Rule 4(f)(1) specifies the application of the Hague Service Convention.  Thanks to Schlunk, you don’t have a choice in the matter, but you won’t have to argue with the judge when you can simply cite that rule.
  3. Flexibility.  If the Convention isn’t applicable, 4(f)(3) lets you serve electronically.
  4. Savings.  Notice pleading keeps translation costs down, while those of us in fact pleading states have to submit volumes, lest we waive a particular argument.

If you practice in Missouri and have ever scratched the surface of Rule 54, you know that the state’s rules on service of process aren’t incredibly well thought-out.  Or they may have been well thought out in 1973, but they haven’t gotten a deep-dive review in quite some time, so they really don’t reflect the realities of life in the 21st century.  When a client calls me from St. Louis or Cape Girardeau, I know that just getting a summons issued could be a massive pain in the neck.

Contrast this with the likes of Colorado (among other states), where the Supreme Court has substantially adopted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure– not verbatim, but in large measure.  I know that litigators in Denver or Grand Junction aren’t too hassled when it comes to process, and I know they’ll enjoy the same operating system in either venue.

Now, if you can destroy diversity and think you have a better shot in state court, by all means– tee it up.  But if federal venue is inevitable, save yourself some turmoil in the beginning.

 

Since the beginning, the primary purpose of this blog has been to educate the practicing bar on the practical application of the Hague Service Convention.  While we’re happy to give away the recipe to the Special Sauce (there’s no secret about this stuff, really), we’ve been lucky to have a whole bunch of great people trust us to handle their Hague Service Requests from start to finish.  Many of them find us through the Hague Law Blog, the readers of which usually fall into one of three categories:

  1. Academics/students researching practical procedural matters,
  2. Do-It-Yourself-ers who need to serve defendants located abroad, and
  3. Clients of Viking Advocates (or those who are about to be our clients).

I have argued, also since the beginning, that a DIY approach to Hague Service is risky and potentially far more costly than it might seem, so today we’ve got some exciting news for the folks in the second category: you’re no longer on your own.

We’re excited to announce the launch of HAGUE ENVOY, a new platform designed for practitioners who still want to handle their own Hague Service Requests, but who don’t have the time to research all of the ins & outs of the Convention.

We’ve already done the research and pulled multiple countries together in a single application, and we’ve lived in the treaty for years, so the ins & outs aren’t new to us.  The result: lawyers and court officials can now focus on the substantive matters in a case rather than procedural hurdles.

It’s as simple as we can make it. Pop into the platform and pay the fee, answer a battery of questions, and in ten or twenty minutes, you have a completed request form (or forms… it’ll handle multiple defendants in multiple countries).  We’ll also provide guidance on what to do with the form in a specific, step-by-step format.

And along the way, if we spot a quicker and easier avenue to go down, we’ll let you know.

To be sure, Viking Advocates is still here for you, but if you definitely want to handle things on your own, Hague Envoy can be a handy tool for your workbench.

(My contact info is in the upper right ↗↗↗  if you’re on a desktop.  It’s down below ↓↓↓  if you’re on a phone or tablet.  Just sayin’.)

Buckinghamshire County Council, Ros Tyrrell, via Wikimedia Commons.

Yet another “FAQ” post, if you will…

“Hey, Aaron, the complaint is under seal, and the judge has ordered me to instruct the process server that he’s under the same obligation as I am.”

I respond: Well, that’s all fine and good, if you’re using private agent service in a country that would enforce the seal.  But Article 5 service via a Central Authority?  In a word, fugghetaboutit.  Once this thing goes overseas, all bets are off.

See, the seal has absolutely no coercive effect on a foreign authority except under the doctrine of comity, and it really has no practical effect on a private agent overseas.  At least, not one who isn’t somehow accountable to the court, and isn’t in a country that would enforce the seal.

With agents, ultimately, it comes down to trust, and that’s not the end of the world.  If the agent understands the gravity of the situation, and the real, palpable concerns that prompt the seal in the first place, you’re going to be okay.*

But when you involve foreign government & judicial authorities, all we have to go on is an argument that (1) U.S. courts would respect a judicial seal ordered by a foreign court, and (2) our courts have done so before, so (3) would you keep things under wraps, Monsieur le Juge, s’il vous plaît?  Pretty please?

Foreign officials are under no obligation within the Hague Service Convention to keep things confidential.  And in many places, sadly, Hague requests are handled by low-level bureaucrats at some point in the chain of custody** and they have zero motivation to keep things under wraps, especially in response to a U.S. judge’s edicts. What effect that has on the procedural posture of the case, I cannot say, but the court must understand that its authority to dictate terms ends at the shoreline.

* The agents I work with get it.  They understand the seal and they understand that, although they may not suffer any legal penalties in their home jurisdiction, they’ll never get another job from me.  But if I don’t have a trusted agent wherever you need to serve, I won’t even make assurances, much less guarantees.  Simply put, I can’t guarantee anything once the documents go abroad.

** For lack of a better word.

Ocho Rios, Standish77 via Wikimedia Commons

Squarely in the heart of the Caribbean Sea lies an island that has played host to countless movies, spring break junkets, and movies about spring break junkets.  The mere mention of Jamaica conjures images of Bob Marley, cabanas under palm trees, and scantily clad beachgoers who have escaped the frigid northern winter.  And lots of tour packages… which naturally leads to lots of litigation.

Jamaica is not party to the Hague Service Convention (HSC), although it has acceded to the Hague Apostille and Child Abduction Conventions.  Notwithstanding its absence from the HSC, serving documents in Jamaica is relatively straightforward, owing to its status as a former British colony and current member of the Commonwealth of Nations.  It maintains a healthy common law system, so it should not be unfamiliar to American or Canadian* lawyers.

Service of U.S. (and most likely, Canadian) process can be effected (1) by mail, if permissible under forum court rules, (2) by Letter Rogatory, or (3) via private process server.  In all cases, enforcement of a judgment must be kept in mind– and it is in that light that I recommend Door #3 for just about every case that come across my desk (yes, I’ll be happy to handle things for you).  Addressing each in turn:

  1. Mail:  Most U.S. courts, where service is allowable by mail to begin with, allow mail service on foreign defendants only where it is not prohibited by the rules of the foreign jurisdiction.  Frankly, I’m still not a big fan of service by mail– it’s a bad idea when there are other practical methods available.
  2. Letter Rogatory:  an official request from the forum court for judicial assistance from a Jamaican court.  Costly and time consuming, this instrument really isn’t all it’s cracked up to be (see here for elaboration on what it is).  For starters, budget a $2,275 fee to the Department of State just to convey the thing.  Then anticipate several months of waiting before a response comes back through diplomatic channels.  A Letter Rogatory simply isn’t necessary to ensure that service is effected according to Jamaican law.
  3. Private process server:  Significantly faster than a Letter Rogatory, and certainly on a more solid factual footing than mail.  A Jamaican process server can ensure that local rules are followed, thus ensuring that the manner of service will not give a court cause to reject an enforcement action later.  Just make sure that the proof of service demonstrates compliance with both bodies of law– down there and here at home.

Some non-Hague jurisdictions present significant problems with service.  Jamaica is definitely not one of them— indeed, it is among the simplest places to serve, either within or outside the Hague community.

* Commonwealth procedures may govern the manner in which Canadian process should be served in Jamaica.  The author is not admitted to practice in any non-U.S. jurisdiction, so although the information presented here may be accurate, it should not be presumed to be exclusively applicable in Canadian causes of action.

You really didn’t think I’d let this post end without a picture of a bobsled, did you?

Bayeux Tapestry – Scene 57: the death of King Harold. Myrabella via Wikimedia Commons.

Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I took Civil Procedure from a couple of highly talented professors.  One was among my favorite teachers of all time— he taught the concept of joinder with a shopping bag full of Beanie Babies™ and, for some baffling reason, a Jessie the Cowgirl™ doll from Toy Story 2.*  On the surface, that’s a very weird thing for a licensed attorney to put into a blog post, but the fact is, generations of JD’s from the University of Missouri-Kansas City know joinder cold because of Jeffrey Berman’s frequent flier card at Toys ‘R’ Us.  Third-party claims, cross-claims, counterclaims? Yeah, we got this.

That said, due to the compressed nature of that semester, and the reality that you just can’t learn everything you need to know as a 1L, we never really touched on certain basic concepts.  Like “how do you serve process?” or “why is the judge such a grumpy gus and how do I assuage his ire?” or “is it too late to get my LSAT fee back?”

Notably, we never really delved into the nature of subpoenas– neither the theoretical nor the practical.  They were mentioned in the broader discussion of discovery, where we had to understand arcane Latin phrases like ad testificandum and duces tecum.  But it was naturally assumed that if you wanted somebody to cough up evidence, all you have to do is send ’em one of these things.

Subpoenas serve a two-fold purpose.

It wasn’t until I was well into practice that I really gave the dual nature of subpoenas much thought, as I was talking to a client one day about serving a subpoena abroad.**  It turns out that, while her third-party in Country X was perfectly willing to produce (they detested my client’s party-opponent), they were deathly afraid of a lawsuit if they produced without a subpoena.  They wouldn’t do it without some coercive document that would force them to do what they wanted to do anyway.

It dawned on me that, sometimes, a subpoena is an offensive weapon– a sword– used to force someone to bend to your will.  At other times, it’s defensive, acting as a shield to protect an ally who has your back.  This is certainly not a novel idea– it’s a straightforward concept that should simply be understood.  I’d just never given it any thought before that conversation.

So how does the shield benefit somebody overseas?

Truth is, it really doesn’t… or rather, it can’t.  Keep in mind that a U.S. subpoena has no coercive effect abroad, unless it’s directed at a U.S. national– and even then, don’t be so sure it can be done.  If it’s merely a matter of effecting service to satisfy the court, and the third party is willing to produce, the judge may approve mere service.  Here’s the progression in the federal rules, with a problematic quirk:
  • Rule 45(b)(3) governs service of a subpoena abroad.
  • It incorporates 28 U.S.C. § 1783.
  • § 1783 impliedly incorporates Rule 4(f)– service “shall be effected in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to service of process on a person in a foreign country.”

Okay, that might happen, or it might not (far too many variables to address in this space).  But note the fly in the ointment:  Rule 45 and Section 1783 apply specifically to “a United States national or resident who is in a foreign country”.  Neither of them delves into non-U.S. persons.

In short, there is no direct prescription for serving a subpoena on either third-party.  All you can really do is ask them.  Otherwise, you’re looking at filing a Hague Evidence Request or an old-fashioned Letter Rogatory— it would still take action by a foreign court to compel the production.

That compulsion has to be there in order for either the sword or the shield to do any good.
* COMES NOW plaintiff, Buzz Lightyear…

** Hint: theoretically, it’s possible to serve it, but that doesn’t make it effective.

The old Jackson County Courthouse, Independence, Missouri.  We don’t use it anymore, and Independence isn’t the county seat anymore.  MT Images via Wikimedia Commons.

A routine question from clients across the continent– especially those in my own state*:  “Hey, Aaron, the clerk says I have to tell the court who is going to be serving the documents in China or they won’t issue my summons.  Could you get me the process server’s name and qualifications so they can appoint him?”

There’s a lot loaded into that, with some compelling responses.  The primary response: No… you and I don’t get to know that.

The client will sometimes get a clerk who insists that s/he has the authority to determine who is qualified to serve, and that if I think otherwise, I have to cite an authority compelling his/her issuance of the summons without knowing who’s going to do it.  This makes me just a bit more than combative.

For service on defendants in Hague countries, I usually reply thusly (to my client):

  1. Who serves is dictated by the judicial authorities in the foreign country, by virtue of the Hague Service Convention.  If the clerk’s office disagrees, refer them to Article VI, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution and The Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor.
  2. Even if that weren’t the case, China (or any other civil law jurisdiction, for that matter) doesn’t even have process servers in the sense that we common law practitioners understand them.
  3. Moreover, no foreign court or government is going to bow to the will of a Missouri court– or any U.S. court.  Really.  Imagine the shoe on the other foot– can you picture the reaction a U.S. judge would have to some Chinese or Venezuelan or Italian court dictating his/her actions?
  4. At that, there’s a 99.44% chance that even the Central Authority can’t tell you in advance which random judicial officer is going to be handed this assignment nine months down the road.
  5. But above all, you want me to cite a case or statute that gives you the authority to issue the summons?  How about you cite a statute or case that gives you the authority to deny it? 

In most cases, the rule is awfully clear:  the clerk shall issue the summons.  (Some rules say shall issue, others say must issue… either way, it’s an imperative.)

The best illustration is right here in Kansas City, where (contrary to Rogers & Hammerstein) not quite everything is up to date.  Yet Jackson County is not unique across Missouri, and Missouri is not unique nationwide.  My criticism isn’t just directed at my own.

See, our court long ago had to assert a bit of control over who could & couldn’t serve process in Jackson County– anybody who’s seen Season 4 of Fargo*** can connect the dots as to why.  KC was Vegas before Vegas was Vegas, but without the regulation.  On its face, the court’s appointment regime created a sort of guild monopoly, in which a process server had to at least pass a de minimis background check.  Even today, if you’re not on the approved list of Jackson County process servers, you can’t serve Jackson County process in Jackson County without being appointed.

Fortunately, neither getting on the list nor getting an ad hoc appointment is very difficult– the barriers to entry are minimal, and the “guild” doesn’t actually meet or hold sway over anything.  But the authority to limit who can and who cannot serve ends at the county line.***  Outside the county, our courts really have to defer to the rules in place “over there”, whether that’s in a neighboring county, in a sister state, or in another Hague country.

Put another way, U.S. courts lack the authority to dictate what goes on in other Hague-applicable jurisdictions, as long as the methodology comports with due process.  Getting into the tall weeds of appointments does not fit with the requisite procedure.

[All that said, note that U.S. courts do have the authority to commission laypersons, specifically non-lawyers, to sign Hague Request forms.  But that goes to who’s asking for service, not who’s actually serving.  Those are completely different concepts.]

** Chris Rock as Loy Cannon.  He gets my nod for the Emmy this year.

* Mercifully, I’ve never had to deal with this at the federal level.  I’ve had to deal with summons modification refusals (like in bankruptcy court), but I don’t remember having a federal court clerk insist on knowing who is going to serve.  The simple reason why?  Federal Rule 4 doesn’t care.  Any non-party adult can serve a federal action here in the U.S.

***  Rule 4.9 – Special or Private Process Services

1. Any person serving process within Jackson County, Missouri, except those authorized to serve process for the Jackson County Prosecutor’s Office, must establish by affidavit that he or she meets the qualifications provided in section (3)(b) of this rule, as stated below.