Case of the Day: DDR Señorial LLC v. Prestige Holdings

The case of the day is DDR Señorial LLC v. Prestige Holdings, Ltd. (D.P.R. 2016). DDR was a Delaware company doing business in Puerto Rico. The defendant, Prestige, was a Trinidad & Tobago company. Trinidad & Tobago is not party to the Hague Service Convention. DDR sought to make service under FRCP 4(f)(2)(A), i.e., “as prescribed by the foreign country’s law for service in that country in an action in its courts of general jurisdiction.” It served the papers by personal delivery to Prestige’s principal place of business. Prestige moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process.

Apparently personal service is a valid method of service in the domestic actions in the courts of Trinidad & Tobago. But as judge observed, FRCP 4(f)(2)(A) should not be construed to permit service by the methods permissible in domestic actions when the foreign state has enacted a law mandating a particular method of service in foreign actions, citing Grand Entertainment Group, Ltd. v. Star Media Sales, Inc., 988 F.2d 476, 487 (3d Cir. 1993). So the question was whether Trinidad had enacted such a statute, and if so, whether the service complied with it.

The judge looked to Part 76 of the Civil Proceeding Rules 1998, which, he said, required service to be by letter rogatory. This is, I think, almost certainly a misreading of the rule, though I am no Trinidadian lawyer. Part 76.1 reads:

  1. This Part deals with the service on a person in Trinidad and Tobago of any process in connection with civil or commercial proceedings in a foreign court or tribunal where the court receives a written request for service—
    1. from the Minister with responsibility for External Affairs, with a recommendation by him that service should be effected; or
    2. where the foreign court or tribunal is in a [Hague Service] Convention country, from a consular or other authority of that country.

The rule then goes on to give requirements for the service of process received in this way. It seems pretty clear to me that the purpose of the rule is to provide for the procedure when the court receives a request for service from abroad, not to proscribe any other methods of service. Nothing in the rule suggests that outcome. But I invite Trinidadian lawyers to comment.

4 responses to “Case of the Day: DDR Señorial LLC v. Prestige Holdings”

  1. Seems a pretty straightforward issue on appeal (your correct conclusion that the judge here misread the rule).

    1. Well, one of the problems with this sort of ruling is that it most likely won’t be appealed—DDR will just serve process by the means the court said were required.

  2. P Smith

    Why, if Trinidad & Tobago is not a party to the Hague Service Convention, do the Civil Proceeding Rules 1998 read as if they are?

    Aside from the provision of Part 76 that you quote, we also have Rule 7.9(2)(a) expressly providing for service of Trinidad & Tobago process via the Convention authorities and rule 7.10 instructing claimants on how they should go about that.

    1. A very good question—I don’t see the logic.

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.