Case Update (21 May 2024): Peled v. Blinken, et. al.; if you do not serve pursuant to the Hague Service Convention through Central Authorities, you must be cautious of the rules
Plaintiff sued a series of Defendants in the U.S. District Court for the SD of Ohio (Eastern Div) related to events that ended in the disappearance of his children at the end of a 2-week vacation in Israel. Plaintiff served his Defendant wife (one of several defendants) multiple times, including: (1) an attempt by an Israeli process server to serve Defendant Wife at her place of work by leaving the papers with the receptionist; (2) an attempt to serve the Defendant Wife at a home address, which was found vacant; (3) USPS postal mail to the home address where in-person service was attempted; and, (4) an attempt to serve Defendant Wife in a court proceeding in Israel. Plaintiff sought and obtained an entry of default when Defendant did not respond to the court filings. The Defendant filed a motion set aside the default, on the basis that she was not properly served. The district court set aside the default, finding the various attempts at service were insufficient.
The court concluded that use of the Hague Service Convention is mandatory “when documents must be transmitted abroad to a Convention signatory in order to effect service.” Israel is a signatory. The primary method of service is through a country’s “Central Authority.” However, Articles 10b and 10c do allow for “some other forms of personal service”. Israel objected to those provisions of the Convention at the time it entered into it, saying that it would only effect service of judicial documents through “the Directorate of Courts, and only where an application for such service emanates from a judicial authority or from the diplomatic or consular representation of a Contracting State.” “In other words, Israel forbids the sort of direct personal service that Plaintiff attempted on several occasions here.” “Accordingly, Plaintiff’s attempts to serve Defendant at her place of work, her former address, and at a court proceeding were insufficient.”
Article 10a of the Convention relates to service by mail. This article “does not ‘affirmatively authorize service by mail,’ but it also ‘does not ‘interfere with … the freedom’ to serve documents through postal channels.’” Service by mail is therefore permissible if 2 conditions are met: (1) the receiving state (Israel) has not objected to service by mail; and (2) service by mail is authorized under otherwise-applicable law. Israel does not object to service by postal channels. However, the otherwise-applicable law requirement is not met through the Federal Rules because the FRCP requires that mail be sent by the clerk of court.
