Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Hague Service Convention permits service of judicial process abroad by mail, provided that the country in which the service takes place has not objected to service by mail, and service by mail is authorized in the country where the litigation is pending.
Video Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon
Background of the case
The United States is a party to the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, commonly known as the Hague Service Convention, promulgated by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. The Convention establishes procedures for the service of process in one country relating to civil or commercial litigation pending in another, where both countries are parties to the Convention.
One procedure authorized by the Convention is to effectuate service through a "central authority" to be established by the government of each member country. Alternative methods may also be allowed provided that the country where the litigation is pending allows that method of service, and the country where service is to be made does not object to that method.
This case arose from a state-court litigation in Texas. Water Splash, Inc., a water playground equipment manufacturer based in New York, sued Tara Menon, a Canadian citizen living in Quebec, in a Texas state court. The lawsuit claimed that while Menon was working a sales representative for Water Splash, also worked for competitor company South Pool and misused Water Splash's designs and drawings for the ocmpetitor's benefit.
Water Splash had to serve process (the summons and complaint) upon Menon in order for its case to proceed. The trial court allowed Water Splash to serve Menon in Canada through several means, including by certified mail. Service was made as the court directed, but Menon failed to answer or appear, and the court granted Water Splash a default judgment. Menon then moved to set aside the judgment against her, arguing that the service by mail was inconsistent with the Hague Service Convention, but the trial court rejected the motion. Menon appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court and held, by a 2-1 vote, that Article 10 of the Hague Convention disallows service by mail in cases covered by the Convention.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a division of authority among the lower courts on this issue. Article 10 of the Convention allows for legal documents to be "sent" by mail. The Hague Conference and many member countries understood this provision as authorizing service by mail, unless the receiving country filed an objection to this method of service (which neither the Canada nor the United States had done). In the United States, however, there was a split of opinion on this question among state and federal courts throughout the country.
The Hague Conference and the Solicitor General filed amicus curiae briefs supporting Water Splash's position that article 10 did not preclude service by mail where that procedure was otherwise authorized. Oral argument was held on March 22, 2017.
Maps Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon
Opinion of the Court
Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the Court's opinion in the case, which was unanimous (except that Justice Neil Gorsuch, who joined the court after this case was orally argued, did not participate). The Supreme Court vacated the Texas Court of Appeals' decision and held that international service of process by mail in a Hague Convention country does not violate the Convention, as long as the receiving country has not objected to that method of service.
In holding that Article 10(a) allows service by mail, the Court reasoned that "the scope of the Convention is limited to service of documents" and that Article 10's reference to "sending" documents by mail must therefore refer to a method of service. The opinion also relied on the drafting history of the Convention, the executive branch's understanding of the treaty when it was negotiated, and the current views of the United States Department of State as well as other parties to the treaty, all of which supported the Court's interpretation.
The Court concluded that "the traditional tools of treaty interpretation unmistakably demonstrate that Article 10(a) encompasses service by mail." This did not entirely resolve the case, because it remained to be determined whether service by mail is authorized under the law of Texas, the forum in which the lawsuit was brought. The case was remanded to the Texas state courts to decide this issue.
References
Further reading
- Article of the Day: Christopher Voltz on the Hague Service Convention in Pennsylvania
- Case of the Day: Willhite v. Rodriguez-Cera
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments