Moore v. Toyota Motor Corporation
2:17-cv-01379
E.D. La.Nov 13, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Robert L. Moore alleges severe injury from a defective airbag in his 2016 Toyota Corolla and filed suit (state court) against Toyota entities and Takata, later amended after removal to federal court.
- After removal, plaintiff added foreign defendants: Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd and Toyota Motor Corporation (both Japanese); record shows service attempts in mid-2017 by mailing documents to Japan and to a U.S. subsidiary.
- Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyoda Gosei moved to dismiss for improper service of process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and international-service rules.
- Plaintiff attempted service on Toyota Motor Corporation by U.S. mail to Japan; did not use Japan’s Hague central authority and did not employ the clerk for a signed-receipt mailing.
- Plaintiff served Toyoda Gosei’s North American subsidiary by certified mail; plaintiff did not show the subsidiary was the parent’s agent under Louisiana law and did not establish valid service in Japan.
- Court: ordered plaintiff to properly serve Toyota Motor Corporation within 60 days; dismissed claims against Toyoda Gosei without prejudice (noting statute of limitations issues and lack of court-ordered joinder).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of service on Toyota Motor Corp. in Japan | Service by international mail is permitted (citing state long-arm and Hague allowing mail) | Mail to Japan was not effected via Hague central authority, clerk, or other authorized means; thus service invalid | Service was invalid; plaintiff given 60 days to effect proper service |
| Availability of Rule 4(f) mail service | Louisiana long-arm or Hague permits the mail used | Federal Rule 4(f) requires internationally agreed means or clerk-handled signed-receipt mail; these were not used | Regular international mail by plaintiff insufficient under Rule 4(f); improper service |
| Validity of service on Toyoda Gosei via its U.S. subsidiary | Service on subsidiary suffices (argued mail was sent and acknowledged) | Service on subsidiary is improper absent forum-law finding that subsidiary is involuntary agent of foreign parent | Service on the U.S. subsidiary insufficient; plaintiff failed to show agency; claims dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether plaintiff should get another chance to serve Toyoda Gosei | Requests 60 days to re-serve | Defendants oppose; note plaintiff added Toyoda Gosei without leave and statute of limitations elapsed | Request denied; dismissal without prejudice due to improper joinder and prescriptive-bar concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Aetna Bus. Credit, Inc. v. Universal Decor & Interior Design, Inc., 635 F.2d 434 (5th Cir.) (proceedings void if a party is not validly served)
- Carimi v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., 959 F.2d 1344 (5th Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to prove valid service)
- Lozano v. Bosdet, 693 F.3d 485 (5th Cir.) (Rule 4(f) allows without-prejudice dismissal for lack of reasonable diligence; dismissal for delay requires clear record of delay or contumacious conduct)
- Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (Supreme Court) (service on domestic subsidiary may be effective if subsidiary is the foreign parent’s agent under forum law)
- Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 137 S. Ct. 1504 (Supreme Court) (Hague Convention permits service by mail only if receiving state has not objected and mail is authorized by applicable law)
- Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798 (9th Cir.) (Rule 4(f) authorizes mail service only when directed by court or sent by clerk with signed-receipt mail)