Twenty bucks and a beer of your choice says the Kuwaiti defendant fails to appear. 🙂

[Sadly, my business *does* involve roaming about the countryside, correcting judicial errors, much like the guy in the Men Without Hats video… I just need a motley-clad dwarf and crazy blonde woman to join me in my quest.]

For the uninitiated…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjPau5QYtYs

I don’t know about you, but I’m not really in the business of roving correcter of judicial errors! It seems to me that the Kuwaiti defendant will be able to bring a motion for insufficient service of process, if it wishes, and to argue that the service was improper under FRCP 4(f)(3).

There we go. I hadn’t realized that they’d changed the formatting in the last revision of the HCCH site. The old layout listed non-members below the members… in the new iteration, there’s a tab for each, just as you indicate.

I thought it awfully odd that they’d reflect accession in the Authorities & Practical Info page, but leave non-members out of the Status Table.

(The tab is even more hidden on mobile devices.)

So, how do we correct the court’s error? This is clearly a violation of Schlunk– but who has standing?

(Amicus?)

Aaron, the FRCP 4(f)(3) motion confirms your speculation—the plaintiff cited the status table for the erroneous proposition. So the blame lies mostly with the plaintiff, not the court.

It’s on the status table. You just have to click the “non-members” tab, because the table lists HCCH member states separately from non-member states like Kuwait. I will make a suggestion to the folks at the HCCH on this, because I think you may be right that the confusing presentation of the table contributed to the error.