Case Update (17 July 2024): Ju v. Ju; court authorizes alternative service on Defendant in Taiwan by first class postal mail
This case is before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, even though it originated from a Washington State court family law case. In 2016, the Washington State court awarded the Plaintiff $697,696.08 in overdue child and spousal support, and issued an order to show cause judgment against the Defendant, who is a resident of Taiwan. Defendant has failed to comply with payments and changed his contact details, including his email address. On May 16, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in Taiwan seeking enforcement of the Washington State judgment, but the Taiwanese court declined to enforce the judgment, concluding it was not a “final decision.” Plaintiff did not pursue an appeal because of the costs associated therewith. Plaintiff then filed the District Court case in Washington to seek enforcement of the Washington State judgment. This particular opinion focuses only on Plaintiff’s current motion to serve the Defendant by postal mail at his residence in Taiwan (the same address used for the Taiwanese court case).
Pursuant to FRCP 4(f), alternative service must be (1) directed by the court and (2) not prohibited by international agreement. Plaintiff would need to demonstrate “that the facts and circumstances of the case necessitate the district court’s intervention” to order alternative service. The “method of service crafted by the district court must be reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objection.”
The court concluded that service by postal mail to the Defendant’s known address, used in the Taiwanese court case, is not prohibited by international agreement. There are no treaties between Taiwan and the United States regarding service of process. The court also cited a U.S. Department of State URL that says “service of process in Taiwan can be effected by international registered mail/return receipt requested.” The court also concluded that service by mail was reasonably calculated to apprise the Defendant of the lawsuit. The court noted that service by mail is “the common method of service in Taiwan” and that the Plaintiff intended to use the address that was used to serve all the documents in the Taiwanese litigation.
