This is penned on July 9, 2024, well in advance of the Dominican Republic’s implementation of the Hague Service Convention. It will be revised in total on October 1 when the Convention enters into force.

If the action can wait until then… wait, because for the moment, the Convention’s lack of force is at once a blessing and a curse. On one hand, we aren’t bound to a mandatory means of service (this applies to U.S. and Canadian actions alike). On the other, we don’t have a streamlined way of doing things either. As such, there are really three ways currently available, though none of them carries the heft of a Hague procedure. These methods pertain to U.S. federal (civil matters) only– state matters and those heard in Canadian courts require a bit more complex analysis. Still, you’ll get the gist:

• Option 1: MAIL. Ordinarily, I contend that mail service is a bad idea, but in most non-Hague jurisdictions, I often recommend it. The DR is one of them. If you don’t anticipate having to go abroad to enforce, it’s completely viable, legally speaking. You still have a fact problem, but legal validity isn’t a challenge. Just make sure you’re doing it right.
• Option 2: ELECTRONIC SERVICE. Completely valid from a due process standpoint, and available by court order under Rule 4(f)(3). Like mail, if you don’t anticipate having to go abroad to enforce, you’re on solid ground.
• Option 3: Letter Rogatory. The oldest of old-fashioned methods of serving someone in a foreign jurisdiction. It’s pricy, it takes a while, and plaintiff’s counsel has zero control over the matter, but it’s the only way to overcome a validity challenge in an enforcement action abroad.

Stay tuned in the fall, as this will change.

Rich Coast. Delicious Coast. Abundant Coast. However you want to translate Costa Rica into English, it conjures images of palm trees and stunning beaches and lush interior rainforest. And parrots. Lots and lots of parrots. I have a friend who spends a month down there every winter, and who can blame him?

But there’s quite a bit more to this Central American nation than umbrellas you sit under and umbrellas poking out of an icy beverage. Costa Rica has more teachers than soldiers, they say. Its economy is one of the healthiest and it’s the most politically stable in Central America, and it enjoys free trade with several of its neighbors and the United States.  Since 2016, serving process in Costa Rica has been subject to the strictures of the Hague Service Convention, regardless of which U.S. or Canadian venue is hearing the matter.

Some background is in order, if you’re so inclined, before we cut to the chase.

• The roadmap to the overall process—the recipe to our Secret Sauce.
• The structure of the Convention itself is discussed in this four-part series.
• And an absolutely critical note: the Hague Service Convention does not pertain to subpoenas.  Repeat after me—you can’t just SERVE a subpoena abroad.  You have to file a Hague Evidence Request (on in the case of Costa Rica, a Letter Rogatory)  Dramatically different from serving a summons or notice.

Here’s how service is done in Costa Rica:

Article 5 Service

• Translate the documents. Yes, into Spanish. Yes, it’s required. Opt to not do this… well, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
• Fill out a USM-94. Be very careful about ensuring that it is complete and concise (including all of the entered details in Spanish), and make sure that it is signed by a court official or an attorney.  If it is not, make sure that the person signing is commissioned by the court.
• Send to the Central Authority.
• Sit tight. It may take a while—likely several months, from submission to return of proof.  The judge is just going to have to accept that fact, because there is no realistic alternative.

Article 10 alternative methods

• Article 10 options may or may not be available– we don’t know, because Costa Rica’s declarations aren’t known. As such, don’t get cute.

Seriously—that’s all there is to it in Costa Rica.

Bonus practice tip #1: if the idea is strategically sound, ask the defendant to waive service.  Note that I didn’t say accept— I said waive.  There’s a very important difference.

Bonus practice tip #2: if you’re defense counsel, always question the validity of service effected on your overseas client.  The plaintiff may not have done it correctly.

Interestingly, the seminal case regarding electronic service, and its validity under the Mullane doctrine, would produce a dramatically different result to today.  At the time of Rio Properties, Costa Rica had not joined the Hague Service Convention.  Were the same facts at issue in 2024, electronic service and the Convention would conflict violently.

Ordinarily, a how-to guide like this would lay out methodology for the application of the Hague Service Convention. But Panama isn’t party to the Hague Service Convention, so that idea goes out the window. This is at once a blessing and a curse.

It’s a blessing

… because you aren’t tied to a method that is wholly reliant on the performance of foreign bureaucrats who aren’t exactly motivated to take care of you in a speedy manner– if they even like us at all. In Russia, U.S. and Canadian Hague Requests are rejected as a matter of course. Venezuela hasn’t had a functional government for years, so it’s tough to even get a Request on file. In Mexico, China, and India, internal procedures are so cumbersome that plaintiffs wait literally years for proof to come back.

It’s a curse

… because there’s no truly streamlined method that relies on those foreign bureaucrats to ensure compliance with local law and practice. The only government channel available is a Letter Rogatory, transmitted pursuant to an OAS treaty that does little but cut diplomatic legations out of the equation. If you must go that way, contact the contractor who handles the U.S. government’s Central Authority function for the InterAmerican Convention on Letters Rogatory and Additional Protocol. [Canada is not a Convention member, so you’re back to the traditional means of conveyance… diplomatic channels.]

Other options?

So what is a practitioner to do when faced with serving a defendant in Panama? Two ideas, described here in the context of U.S. federal rules (noting that state and Canadian provincial rules may have analogous provisions):

Mail

Ordinarily, I contend that service by mail is a terrible idea. Ordinarily, there are better options, though. In the case of Panama, mail is my first recommendation most of the time. Just be sure to comply strictly with Rule 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) or you’re out of luck.

The rule requires that the documents be (1) dispatched from the clerk’s office and (2) sent using a form of mail* requiring a signed receipt. That’s where the wheels fall off much of the time. (But keep reading.)

Electronic service

Rule 4(f)(3) is the mechanism by which a plaintiff can seek an order to serve electronically. It’s constitutionally valid from a due process perspective, and because Panama hasn’t signed on to the Hague Service Convention, there’s no treaty conflict.

Mail, but…

While you’re at it, take a belt & suspenders approach and in your 4(f)(3) motion, ask for an order dispensing with the signature requirement of 4(f)(2)(C)(ii). The ordinary rule allows service by mail as a matter of right, but requires that pesky signed delivery receipt– a rather arcane idea in a post-Covid world. Remember that the Mullane doctrine requires a means reasonably calculated to give the defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard. But mail and e-mail together in the third decade of the 21st century, and you’ve got pretty reasonable calculation.

Wrapping it up

Not a whole lot of fanfare involved– there’s no truly great method of serving in Panama like there are in other places. Letter Rogatory service– even within the treaty mechanism– is costly and time-consuming. Mail and electronic service might get speedier notice and bring your defendant to the table more quickly, but those methods offer a very convenient pretext to a foreign court that wishes to deny recognition and enforcement of your U.S. or Canadian judgment.

In any event, we’re always happy to provide a little direction (even though, for Panama, there’s nothing to engage us for!).

* FedEx and UPS qualify, and given DHL’s penetration of the Latin American market, it might be the best of the bunch. I contend that the actual Post Office, a shell of its former self, is the last thing you should think of if you truly want to get the job done.

(Author’s Note: this post was held for publication in honor of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who passed on Friday at the age of 93.)

Until this fall, serving process in the tiny-but-thriving nation of Singapore entailed a similar approach to serving in another U.S. state or Canadian province. That is, as a former British colony, it maintains a common law judicial system. As long as a competent process server was involved, and Singapore’s rules were followed in tandem with the forum court’s rule, it was smooth sailing (I always used a solicitor to direct the process server, just to ensure legal validity on both sides of the ocean).  As of December 1, 2023, serving process in Singapore is now subject to the strictures of the Hague Service Convention, regardless of which U.S. or Canadian venue is hearing the matter. Yet that doesn’t necessarily mean the seas have become rough.

You’ve got three ways to go:

1. Tap us on the shoulder for bespoke attention—and probably some amusing commentary to boot (see the upper right if you’re on a desktop, or way down below if you’re on a phone/tablet),
2. Cruise over to the Hague Envoy platform at USM94.com to automate the completion of your forms in perhaps twenty minutes or so, or
3. If you’re feeling froggy & would like to handle the whole thing yourself, keep reading.  This lays out the framework you’ll need.

Some background is in order, if you’re so inclined, before we cut to the chase.

• The roadmap to the overall process—the recipe to our Secret Sauce.
• The structure of the Convention itself is discussed in this four-part series.
• And an absolutely critical note: the Hague Service Convention does not frequently help with subpoenas.  Repeat after me—you can’t just serve a subpoena in Singapore. At least, not if you want it to have much effect.  Instead, file a Hague Evidence Request.  Dramatically different from serving a summons or notice.

Now, here’s how service is effected in Singapore:

Article 5 Service

• Translate the documents? Well, no. Again, in a former British colony– especially one so immersed in international commerce– English is still the prevalent, official language and English is required for all documents and requests sent to the Central Authority. But that isn’t the end of the analysis– if your defendant isn’t demonstrably competent in English, U.S. due process (in Canadian parlance, natural justice) necessitates that process be served in a language the defendant understands.*
• Fill out a USM-94. Be very careful about ensuring that it is complete and concise, and make sure that it is signed by a court official or an attorney.  If it is not, make sure that the person signing is commissioned by the court.
• Send it to the Central Authority along with the requisite fee.
• Sit tight. It may take a while—likely several months from submission to return of proof, although Singapore is brand new to the treaty so there’s no track record yet.

Article 10 alternative methods 

• They simply aren’t available, because Singapore objects to them all. Article 5 is the only way it can be done.

Seriously—that’s all there is to it.  The method is straightforward and simple. 

Singapore’s declarations and Central Authority information can be found here.

Bonus practice tip #1: if the idea is strategically sound, ask the defendant to waive service.  Note that I didn’t say accept— I said waive.  There’s a very important difference.

Bonus practice tip #2: if you’re defense counsel, always question the validity of service effected on your overseas client.  The plaintiff may not have done it correctly.