Advice from the Trenches on Service of Process in Mexico

Nelson Tucker, of Process Service Network, commented that there were some new hitches in serving process in Mexico under the Hague Service Convention. Intrigued, I checked out his blog, where he writes that the Mexican Central Authority is now imposing the following requirements:

  1. The summons must state that the defendant has 21 calendar days to respond to the complaint.
  2. “[T]he law which governs service of the documents must be provided, in full, as part of the pleadings.” It’s not precisely clear what Mr. Tucker means by this, and I will try to get some further clarification.
  3. The US court, not the plaintiffs’ lawyer, must be the “applicant.” The Mexican position on this is incorrect, at least with respect to cases in the federal courts (where any person not a party and over 18 years old is authorized to serve a summons),  but it is not unique to Mexico. Article 3 requires the “authority or judicial officer competent” under US law to forward the request to the Central Authority. In 1989, the US delegation to the Special Commission on the Operation of the Hague Conventions reported that the United Kingdom and Israel had rejected requests for service in which the plaintiff’s lawyer acted as applicant. The 2003 Practical Handbook on the operation of the Convention suggests that in light of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, central authorities should forward requests by plaintiffs’ attorneys or private process servers “if the request makes explicit reference to the statute or rule of court endowing them with such authority.”

Thanks to Mr. Tucker for these reports from the front lines!

4 responses to “Advice from the Trenches on Service of Process in Mexico”

  1. […] difficulties in serving process in Mexico under the Hague Service Convention, a topic noted here.American Merchant Banking sued Grupo Radio Central, a Mexican firm, for breach of an oral contract […]

  2. […] Convention, Service by mailThe case of the day, Barnett v. Miguel (D. Idaho 2011), is another example of the trouble US plaintiffs can have in attempting service of process in Mexico. The plaintiffs, […]

  3. […] in July 2011, I commented on some problems with implementation of the Hague Service Convention in Mexico. The Mexico […]

  4. […] but he was unsuccessful. His assertions about what happened are interesting in light of our previous coverage of trouble with the implementation of the Service Convention in Mexico: According to Willhite, he […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Thank you for commenting! By submitting a comment, you agree that we can retain your name, your email address, your IP address, and the text of your comment, in order to publish your name and comment on Letters Blogatory, to allow our antispam software to operate, and to ensure compliance with our rules against impersonating other commenters.