Cert. Watch: Changzhou SinoType v. Rockefeller

Readers, here is the petition for cert. in Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co. v. Rockefeller Investments (Asia) VII, a case from the California Supreme Court that you’ll remember from this spring. Here are the facts in a nutshell. A US company wins a big arbitral award against a Chinese company in a US-based arbitration. Rather than going to China to enforce the award, it sought a California judgment confirming the award. It brought an action in Los Angeles and served the summons and petition on the Chinese company, in China, via FedEx.

China, as we know, has objected to service by postal channels. So it seems obvious that the service was improper under the Hague Service Convention. But it wasn’t obvious to the California Supreme Court. The court noted that the parties had agreed to service of process by Fedex in their written memorandum of understanding. This raises the first big question in the case: can parties waive an Article 10(a) objection by contract?

Leaving the waiver issue aside, the court found that the parties had agreed to serve process by a means less formal than “formal” service of process, in other words, that sending the summons and petition to the Chinese company was just a way of providing notice, not formal service of process (even though everyone seems to agree that delivery of the documents was necessary to the California court’s jurisdiction). This raises the second big question: can a state court define the delivery of a summons and complaint to be something less than “formal service of process” as a way of escaping from the exclusive character of the Convention?

What’s at issue here, as a matter of US law, is the Supremacy Clause. A treaty is the law of the land, and contrary state law is preempted. What’s at issue more practically is the risk of friction in foreign affairs and the risk of prejudice to US litigants. Just look at the case of Russia, which has refused for years to execute requests for service emanating from the US on account of the Russian view that the US is misconstruing the Convention’s provisions on costs. And in that case, the American position is correct! Here, California’s position, for which the United States bears international responsibility, is clearly wrong, and the Supreme Court, the one federal court with the power to ensure state courts comply with treaties, should step in.

Or at least that’s what the petition says!

3 responses to “Cert. Watch: Changzhou SinoType v. Rockefeller”

  1. Antonio Fiorentino Di Stefano

    The usual morass of a nation with multiple heads none particularly keen to uphold the honor of the nation – whatever that could ever mean in a culture of pragmatic opportunism, where such abstract concepts now have real currency only in the armed forces.

  2. […] group of outstanding scholars filed an amicus brief in support of my petition for cert. in Changzhou SinoType v. Rockefeller Technology. The group includes (in alphabetical order) George Bermann (Columbia), Hannah Buxbaum (Indiana), […]

  3. […] as void, on grounds of insufficient service of process. That was what happened, for example, in the Changzhou SinoType case. (You might take the view that SinoType shows there is not much for plaintiffs to worry about, […]

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.