The case of the day is Wepard Corp. v. Diaz, Reus & Targ, LLP (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2026). Diaz, Reus & Targ, a law firm, sued Wepard for allegedly unpaid legal fees. Wepard was located in Malta. DRT moved for leave to serve process by email, but Malta has objected to service by alternate means under Article 10 of the Service Convention. So as long-time readers know, service by email is inconsistent with the Convention, a point that more and more American courts are getting right. Wepard challenged the service, but the lower court held that service by email was permissible. Wepard appealed.

There’s no question that Florida law authorized service by email on its face. But as we know from Volkswagenwerk AG v. Schlunk, because the Convention is a US treaty and thus part of the law of the United States, and because the Convention is exclusive, the Supremacy Clause bars states from authorizing methods of service that the Convention does not authorize, or at least permit.

I have to say that Florida appellate court really missed the boat on this one. It noted that Malta had not expressly objected to service by email, and it reasoned that therefore, service by email was allowed. But the Convention does not allow all methods of service unless expressly objected to. It allows only the methods of service that it authorizes or permits. If Malta objects to service under Article 10, what other provision of the Convention authorizes or permits service by email? None.

A petition for discretionary review is now pending in the Supreme Court of Florida. I had the privilege to represent Professor Huo Zhengxin of the China University of Political Science and Law in Beijing, as a potential amicus curiae. (In Florida, at this stage, you just file a notice indicating your intent to file an amicus brief if the Supreme Court decides to take the case). The views of a scholar from a country like China with a lot of inbound US service will be useful to allow the Florida court to understand a couple of points that may not be apparent from any briefing of the US law issues. First, whatever the time savings that stem from service of process by email, they may be outweighed if, as in the case of China, the plaintiff will end up finding that the eventual judgment is unenforceable in the foreign country if based on service that was contrary to the Convention. Second, the misuse of alternate methods of service that are inconsistent with the Convention is a source of diplomatic friction between the United States and other countries, including China, that the courts ought not to exacerbate.

I’ll keep you posted.