Federal Judiciary

Despite Circuit Split, D.V.I. Allows Hague Convention Signatories to be Served by Certified Mail

Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(f). A review of the caselaw considering the rule, reflects a split among the circuits and even within the Third Circuit regarding whether the Hague Convention, to which Japan is a signatory, allows service by certified mail. See, e.g., In Re Harnischfeger Industries, Inc, 288 B.R. 79, 85 (Bkrtcy.D.Del.2003); Friedman v. Israel Labour Party, No. Civ. A. 96-CV-4702, 1997 WL 379181 at 3 (E.D.Pa. July 2, 2997).

Despite the differing interpretations of Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention, we will follow our sister courts in the District of Delaware and the District of New Jersey. See, e.g., EOI Corp. v. Medical Marketing Ltd., 172 F.R.D. 133 (D.N.J.1997). Because Japan has not objected to the use of postal channels to serve judicial documents upon persons in Japan, Permanent Bureau Report on the Second Special Commission, 28 I.L.M. 1556, 1561 (1989), this Court holds that Plaintiff may serve said Defendant by certified mail.

Full post as published by Split Circuits on October 10, 2008 (boomark / email).