Case of the Day: Roque v. Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.

The case of the day is Roque v. Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd. (Conn. Super. Ct. 2013). The plaintiff, Edwin Roque, alleged that while driving, his car was struck from behind by a Subaru Impreza, which he alleges was manufactured by Fuji Heavy Industries. The claim was that the braking system was defective.

Roque sought to serve process by mailing the summons and complaint to the US headquarters of Subaru of America, in New Jersey, and by mailing the documents to the Connecticut Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and indicating to the Commissioner that Subaru of America was Fuji’s agent for service of process. Fuji moved to dismiss on the grounds of insufficient service of process, arguing that the service did not comply with the Hague Service Convention. The judge first correctly considered whether, under Connecticut law, Roque was required to transmit the documents to Japan in order to effect service. If not, then under Volkswagen the Convention would not even come into play. The judge held that the documents did have to be sent to Japan, because the statute permitting service on the Commissioner did not apply in product liability cases and because Subaru was not Fuji’s agent for service of process. But then court then went on to give extended dicta on how Roque could go about serving Fuji under the Convention. He correctly opined, in accordance with the majority of US courts and essentially all commentators, that Article 10(a) permits service of process by mail. He noted that Japan had not objected to service by mail but that a judgment obtained based on such service might not be enforceable in Japan. He thus noted that “while service by mail would be sufficient, service on the Ministry in keeping with article 5 might be the prudent course.” Good advice.

One response to “Case of the Day: Roque v. Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.”

  1. […] While Japan’s prior declarations had not expressly objected to service by postal channels, they were not worded with great clarity, causing confusion about Japan’s position. The traditional advice was that service by mail was okay, but that a resulting judgment might not be ent… […]

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Your email address will not be published.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.