In a single day at the end of last month, no fewer than four of my clients pinged me to say “hey, I just got off the phone with opposing counsel telling me their client was served. Can you confirm that?” [Short answer: no.] Continue Reading You may know before we do.
A slew of cases have come across my desk lately, involving plaintiff attorneys who have ostensibly already served foreign* defendants via statutory agents in the forum state. After plaintiff’s counsel spends several thousand dollars to defeat a motion to quash, most of them conclude that it might have just been cheaper in the first place to serve the defendant in the foreign jurisdiction instead of via the statutory agent. Continue Reading Statutory agents for foreign defendants? Hague Service could still be cheaper.
One of the biggest fears my clients face is dismissal under a forum court’s deadline for service. In federal court, that means 90 days, and in most states, it means anywhere from 60 to 120. They’re often frantic about the possibility that some grumpy judge is going to dismiss them. I strive mightily to put their minds at ease.
Ah… faith in humanity restored. Just a bit.
In a rant yesterday (NO, 4(f)(3) is NOT co-equal to Hague channels!), I took issue with the impossibly bad logic in another order approving electronic service on a Chinese defendant under Rule 4(f)(3). Simply put, S.D. Cal. got it wrong, the latest in a string of cases steeped in impossibly bad logic. But at the other end of the Golden State, Magistrate Judge Alex Tse, who has been on the bench a mere six months, got it right.
Yet another one popped up on the old radar (Google news alerts) yesterday… a National Law Review article highlighted Victaulic Company v. Allied Rubber & Gasket Co., Inc. in S.D. Cal., but the author’s conclusion was far too optimistic for plaintiffs seeking a way around the Hague Service Convention. The court there held that service by electronic means on a Chinese defendant was perfectly acceptable under Rule 4(f)(3) because electronic service isn’t prohibited by international agreement. My (internal scream) response to that: WRONG.
(You should sense a rant coming.)
Continue Reading NO, 4(f)(3) is NOT co-equal to Hague channels!
One immutable truth looms over everything I do: if you can’t tell me where your defendant is, I can’t get him served for you.*
I couldn’t be more serious– “where?” is the most important question I ever ask a client. There are precisely four variations on the answers. Continue Reading Good, bad, or unknown addresses… and the Hague Service Convention.
And most of them have been all along.
Aside from a few notable blips (such as Italy and Spain, which bore the earliest surge of Covid-19 cases in the west, and India, which has been pummeled), Hague Central Authorities around the world kept doing the job even through lockdowns and quarantines. Commentary that I still get from clients and prospective clients is simply baffling.
“I had a process server tell me that Central Authorities are closed and that nobody’s doing anything.”
(So Aaron shakes his head. Again.)
No. Just… no.
For starters, go beyond your process server and talk to actual lawyers who deal with cross-border procedure daily. Continue Reading YES. THEY’RE STILL OPEN.
(Updated September 12, 2020: see here for the revised way to serve in Austria.)
Continue Reading Austria Ratifies the Hague Service Convention
[The TL;DR of this post: get in touch with Melissa Kucinski for help in international abduction cases.]
Well over two years ago, in “The Hague Child Abduction Convention applies first” I posted a bit about that Convention’s primacy when a lawyer calls me for help in serving process in custody actions. Where a parent has taken his/her child(ren) abroad contrary to the other parent’s wishes, or wrongfully retained the child(ren) abroad, merely pursuing a custody order in the U.S. is rarely the right first step. Continue Reading The Hague Child Abduction Convention: who to call
[Author’s note: see Prof. Bill Dodge’s excellent– and more academic– take on this topic in “The Impossibility of Schrödinger Service” over at the Transnational Litigation Blog, May 7, 2025. The cat can be dead, or it can be alive. It can’t be both.]
Every once in a while, when a colleague is stymied by limitations to serving an offshore defendant, the thought comes to mind that “hey, I might try to get leave of court to serve the defendant’s U.S. counsel.” It’s a great idea, and if the judge signs off on it, I don’t see how it could be unreasonable under the Mullane standard. Getting to that point, though, is often done in an entirely wrong way: using FRCP Rule 4(f)(3) as a basis for the motion.
Why is that entirely wrong? Because 4(f)(3) doesn’t apply if service doesn’t take place abroad. Continue Reading Service on U.S. counsel doesn’t arise from Rule 4(f)(3).
