Water Splash v. Menon: The Question Presented Calls For Caution

In Water Splash v. Menon, the Supreme Court will resolve the longstanding circuit split about whether Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention allows service of process by mail. As I noted in my post on Multisports USA v. TheHut.com, there’s a difficulty in the way the question on cert. has been presented. The question, as it appears in the petition, is: “Does the Hague Service Convention authorize service of process by mail?” The key word, the problematic word, is “authorize.” The question presented in the case is whether Article 10(a) has anything at all to do with service of process by mail or whether it only applies to service of documents other than the summons or other process. But the word “authorized” raises an entirely different question, on which there is also a (possible) circuit split but which is not part of the case before the court.

In Ackerman v. Levine, 788 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1986), as interpreted by Papir v. Wurms, No. 02 Civ. 3273 (RCC), 2005 WL 372061 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2005), the Second Circuit held that Article 10(a) affirmatively authorizes service of process by mail. That is, service by mail is proper under FRCP 4(f)(1), which authorizes all internationally agreed methods of service, and it is unnecessary to look to FRCP 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) or 4(f)(3). This has important procedural consequences. Under Ackerman/Papir, it is not necessary for the clerk to address and send the papers, as it is under FRCP 4(f)(2)(C)(ii), nor is it necessary to seek leave of court, as it is under FRCP 4(f)(3).

In Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2004), on the other hand, the Ninth Circuit held that Article 10(a) merely permits service by mail. The procedural implication is that service by mail in a Convention is state is not authorized by FRCP 4(f)(1), and it’s necessary to find another provision in the law of the forum, such as FRCP 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) or 4(f)(3).

The Supreme Court should be careful, in its decision, not to use the word “authorized,” or if it does, at least to note that it is not deciding whether the Convention authorizes or merely permits service by mail.

My own view on the merits of the question is that the text of Article 10 strongly supports the Ninth Circuit’s view. Article 10 says that the Convention “shall not interfere with” a party’s freedom to send judicial documents via the postal channel. The phraseology strongly suggests to me that there must be some underlying right, presumably in the law of the forum, to send documents by postal channels. But as I have argued, this is a question the Supreme Court should decline to reach.

7 responses to “Water Splash v. Menon: The Question Presented Calls For Caution”

  1. Darren Vasaturo

    If that is the wording in the petition that the Court accepted, why would they not address the question thus put?
    Is that not the main point on which the Circuit Courts are split?

    1. Joey M.

      Yes, I share Darren’s confusion. It seems the question you don’t want reached is exactly what’s been presented. Even if you substitute out the dreaded “authorize,” the question presented still doesn’t distinguish between Article 10(a)’s applicability to service of documents versus summonses and other processes, as I believe you’ve suggested is the true issue. What are we missing? Thanks in advance

      1. Apologies if I’ve been confusing! See my response to Darren’s comment.

    2. No, the point on which the courts are split is whether Article 10(a) allows service of process by mail, or whether it only allows service of other judicial documents, not including the summons, by mail. This is the main circuit split, and the one that was briefed.

      There is another split, which asks, assuming that Article 10(a) does allow service of process by mail, whether Article 10(a) affirmatively authorizes service by mail (in which case you can use FRCP 4(f)(1)) or whether it merely permits it (in which case you have to use FRCP 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) or FRCP 4(f)(3)).

  2. […] see that the government’s brief addressed the question, not really presented in the case but lurking in the way the petition for cert. was phrased, about whether Article 10(a) authorizes service by […]

  3. […] must be effected by a marshal or deputy marshal, and it does not provide for service by mail. Since we know that Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention permits but does not authorize service by mail, […]

  4. […] for Letters Blogatory readers, but it wasn’t the end of the story for the litigants. As I had hoped, the Court was careful in its decision to note that Article 10 permits, but does not itself […]

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.