Mahindra & Mahindra, Ltd. v. Holloway Motor Cars of Manchester, LLC & a.
166 N.H. 740
| N.H. | 2014Background
- Dealers (Holloway, Peters Auto, Crest Chevrolet) filed a protest with the NH Motor Vehicle Industry Board alleging Mahindra (India-based manufacturer) violated RSA ch. 357-C by terminating a distributor relationship and refusing to supply vehicles; dealers contracted only with Global Vehicles, the alleged exclusive U.S. distributor.
- The Board sent notices to Global Vehicles and Mahindra U.S.A. representatives in the U.S.; Mahindra did not appear at the final hearing and the Board entered default against Mahindra and Global Vehicles, finding violations and barring Mahindra from doing business in NH until it appeared.
- Mahindra’s Georgia counsel sent a letter to the Board arguing (1) Mahindra was not properly served, (2) Mahindra does not manufacture vehicles for NH highways, and (3) the underlying dispute between Mahindra and Global Vehicles had been resolved by international arbitration.
- Mahindra moved to vacate the Board’s default judgment on grounds that service on Mahindra in India required compliance with the Hague Service Convention and the attempted methods did not comply; the Board denied the motion.
- The Superior Court affirmed, concluding Mahindra waived service objections and submitted to the Board’s jurisdiction; Mahindra appealed to the NH Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dealers) | Defendant's Argument (Mahindra) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hague Service Convention governed service and was complied with | Service in U.S. on Mahindra agents/attorney sufficient; convention inapplicable to U.S. contacts | Hague Service Convention applied to service abroad and dealers did not comply; service on Mahindra in India was required | Convention applied; dealers conceded it governed and did not effect service in compliance, so service was insufficient |
| Whether Mahindra waived challenge to service/personal jurisdiction by filing letter and motions | Mahindra’s letter invoked defenses related to merits/arbitration and thus waived service objection by submitting questions to Board | Letter only raised jurisdictional defense and arbitration preclusion; Mahindra consistently contested service and did not request merits decision | No waiver; Mahindra’s communications did not submit to Board jurisdiction and did not waive service objection |
| Whether Board obtained personal jurisdiction over Mahindra despite defective service | Board had jurisdiction because of Mahindra’s participation/defenses | Without proper service, Board never obtained jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant | Because service was insufficient, Board lacked personal jurisdiction over Mahindra; default vacated as to jurisdictional ground |
| Whether Board had subject-matter jurisdiction to decide dealers’ RSA ch. 357-C claims against Mahindra | Board’s statute covers dealer/manufacturer relationships and thus has jurisdiction | Mahindra argued it does not manufacture/assemble for NH and merits not reached due to service defect | Court did not decide subject-matter jurisdiction because lack of personal jurisdiction was dispositive; remanded to Board for further proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Impact Food Sales v. Evans, 160 N.H. 386 (requirement of proper service to obtain jurisdiction over nonresident)
- South Down Recreation Assoc. v. Moran, 141 N.H. 484 (strict compliance with statutory methods of service; alternative methods required for nonresident service)
- Strike Four v. Nissan N. Am., 164 N.H. 729 (appellate standard: will not set aside trial court except for errors of law)
- Lyford v. Academy, 97 N.H. 167 (objection to service waived when party submits other questions to tribunal)
- Dolber v. Young, 81 N.H. 157 (acts recognizing jurisdiction tend to show submission to tribunal)
- Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (Hague Service Convention aims and scope)
- Estate of Lunt v. Gaylor, 150 N.H. 96 (motion to strike based solely on defective service does not waive jurisdictional objections)
- Hansa Consult of N. Am. v. Hansaconsult Ingenieurgesellschaft, 163 N.H. 46 (elements for collateral estoppel/issue preclusion)