Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV00266, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV00266 Hearing Date: January 9, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Plaintiff’s Motion for Special Appointment of International Process
Server is GRANTED.
Legal
Standard
Where a defendant
resides in a foreign country which is a signatory of the Hague Convention,
plaintiff is required to show that service on that defendant comports with the
Hague Convention or a proper basis for why the Hague Convention does not
apply.¿(Lebel v. Mai (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1160.)¿In all cases
where the Hague Convention applies, failure to comply with the requirements set
forth therein renders the service void, even if the defendant has actual notice
of the lawsuit.¿(Id. at 1160-1161.)¿
The Convention provides a mechanism for
signatory nations to serve process abroad.¿It applies when the forum state’s
internal law requires transmittal of documents abroad as a necessary part of
service of process. The Convention describes several methods of effecting
service of process. The primary method requires member states to designate a
‘Central Authority’ to receive requests of service, arrange for service of
documents, and return proofs of service.¿(See arts. 2–7, Convention on the
Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial
Matters, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638, reprinted in Fed.
Rules Civ. Proc., foll. rule 4, 28
U.S.C.)¿Alternative methods of service are detailed under articles 8, 9, 10, 11
and 19.2.
(Denlinger v.
Chinadotcom Corp. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1396, 1398-1399, citing Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk (1988) 486 U.S.
694, 700.)
Discussion
Plaintiff contends that Defendant is located in
Mexico. Plaintiff implicitly argues that Mexico is a signatory of the Hague
convention. Accordingly, Plaintiff requests the appointment of a special
process server to transmit documents to the appropriate Central Authority in
Mexico.
Based on the showing
made, the motion is GRANTED.