Ingenieria Y Exportacion De Tecnologia S.L. v. Freytech, Inc.
210 So. 3d 211
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Freytech, Inc. (plaintiff) attempted to serve foreign defendant Ingenieria Y Exportacion De Tecnologia S.L. (Inexa) in Spain by mail under Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention.
- The trial court found service was sufficient under Article 10(a) because Spain does not object to article 10 mail service.
- However, Freytech did not serve a summons along with the complaint—only the complaint was mailed.
- In Florida, service rules require delivery of original process (a summons) with a copy of the complaint to effectuate service of original process.
- The Third District reversed the denial of Inexa’s motion to quash service, holding that serving a complaint alone by mail under Article 10(a) is deficient because the Hague Convention does not eliminate the requirement to serve a summons under Florida law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service by mail under Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention satisfied Florida’s service-of-process requirements | Article 10(a) permits direct service by postal channels where the destination state does not object; thus mailing the complaint suffices | Hague Convention does not dispense with state law requirement to serve a summons; mailing the complaint without a summons is deficient | Court: Article 10(a) does not preempt Florida’s requirement that a summons be served; mailing complaint alone was deficient |
| Whether the Hague Convention preempts the need to serve a summons | Article 10(a) pre-empts inconsistent state methods, so mail service should suffice where allowed | No authority shows the Convention preempts the summons requirement; strict compliance with state service statutes is required | Court: Convention does not pre-empt the summons requirement; state rule still governs |
Key Cases Cited
- Vaughn v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 153 So. 3d 969 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (appealability of order on motion to quash service)
- Grupo Radio Centro S.A.B. DE C.V. v. Am. Merchant Banking Group, Inc., 71 So. 3d 151 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (Hague Convention applies where documents must be transmitted abroad)
- Volkswagenwerk AG v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (1988) (Hague Convention pre-empts inconsistent state service methods)
- Portalp Int’l SAS v. Zuloaga, 198 So. 3d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (endorsing view that Article 10(a) permits service by mail when destination state does not object)
- Bevilacqua v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 194 So. 3d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (Hague Convention preemption principles)
- Bennett v. Christiana Bank & Trust Co., 50 So. 3d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (strict construction and compliance with service statutes)
- Seymour v. Panchita Inv., Inc., 28 So. 3d 194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (summons as method by which court acquires jurisdiction)
- Nirk v. Bank of America, N.A., 94 So. 3d 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (interpreting statute to require service of summons, not just complaint)
Reversed and remanded for proper service.