878 F. Supp. 2d 1252
S.D. Ala.2012Background
- Plaintiff moved for maritime attachment under Rule B and garnishment targeting assets of GCS Hong Kong and related entities.
- Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion in part and denying in part, including limitations on personal jurisdiction due to service issues.
- Plaintiff mailed summons and attachments to defendants in China via Federal Express, claiming proper notice under Rule B(2).
- Defendants argued the Hague Service Convention governs notice abroad, requiring mandatory procedures through its Central Authority, and that Article 10(a) may prohibit mail-based notice.
- Court concluded the Hague Service Convention governs formal service, not Rule B notice, and that Rule B notice may be satisfied without Convention-compliant service; but personal jurisdiction remains lacking for some defendants due to improper service.
- Court held that maritime attachment under Rule B is not limited by Rule 4(f) or the Hague Convention, though lack of personal jurisdiction remains a separate hurdle for enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Hague Service Convention govern Rule B notice in maritime attachment? | Convention governs transmission, so notice must follow Convention procedures. | Convention controls all transmission of judicial documents abroad, preempting Rule B notice. | Convention does not govern Rule B notice; Rule B notice may satisfy notice requirements. |
| Does Article 1 of the Hague Convention preempt Supplemental Rule B notice? | Article 1 requires Convention procedures for transmission abroad. | Article 1 mandates Convention procedures over Rule B. | Convention does not preempt Rule B notice. |
| Whether Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention obligates service by mail for notice in this case | Mail-based transmission suffices under Article 10(a). | Article 10(a) requires formal service and rejects mail in China. | Article 10(a) analysis not controlling; Convention does not require mail-based Rule B notice. |
| Does the court have personal jurisdiction over the Moving Defendants based on service of process? | Proper service was made or could be established; attachment secures jurisdiction. | Service violated Hague Convention or was otherwise improper for personal jurisdiction. | Court lacks personal jurisdiction over GCS Yantai and Ocean Container due to improper service; Rule B notice may satisfy attachment but does not confer jurisdiction. |
| Is maritime attachment under Rule B limited by Rule 4(f) or the Hague Convention? | Attachment is independent of Rule 4(f) and Hague procedures. | Attachment notice must comply with Hague Convention and Rule 4(f). | Attachment under Rule B is not limited by Rule 4(f) or the Hague Convention. |
Key Cases Cited
- Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (1988) (concludes Hague Convention applies to formal service)
- E. Asiatic Co. v. Indomar, Ltd., 422 F. Supp. 1335 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (Rule B notice is not service and Hague governs service)
- Chilean Line, Inc. v. United States, 344 F.2d 757 (2d Cir. 1965) (addressed maritime attachment and limits of Rule B/Rule 4)
- Bequator Corp., Ltd. v. TracFone Wireless, Inc., 717 F. Supp. 2d 1307 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (Hong Kong service issues under Article 10(a) discussed)
- TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Pak China Group Co. Ltd., 843 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (demonstrates Article 10(a) considerations)
- Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2004) (interpretation of Article 10(a) as service)
- Nuovo Pignone, SpA v. Storman Asia M/V, 310 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2002) (interpretation of Article 10(a) plain language)
- Bankston v. Toyota Motor Corp., 889 F.2d 172 (8th Cir. 1989) (textualist approach to Article 10(a))
- Integrated Container Serv., Inc. v. Starlines Container Shipping, Ltd., 476 F. Supp. 119 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (admiralty Rule B history on attachment and notice)