Portalp International SAS v. Zuloaga
198 So. 3d 669
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Daniel Zuloaga sued Portalp USA and its French majority shareholder Portalp International for breach of an employment agreement after his termination.
- Zuloaga attempted to serve Portalp International in France by sending the summons and complaint via Federal Express to Portalp International’s corporate office; delivery was evidenced by a FedEx proof-of-delivery signed by "BEL."
- Portalp International filed a limited appearance and moved to quash service, arguing the Hague Service Convention (article 10(a)) does not permit service of process by mail.
- The trial court denied the motion to quash, relying on precedent (e.g., Ackermann and Lestrade) holding that article 10(a) permits service by mail when the destination state has not objected.
- Portalp International appealed; the Second District reviewed the treaty interpretation and denial of the motion to quash de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether article 10(a) of the Hague Convention permits service of process by mail | Article 10(a) allows sending judicial documents by postal channels directly to persons abroad; mailing the summons and complaint to France is permitted because France did not object | Article 10(a) only permits sending post-service documents; the word "send" cannot reasonably be read to authorize service—only the Hague Convention's formal channels authorize service abroad | Article 10(a) permits service of process by mail when the destination state has not objected; affirmed denial of motion to quash |
Key Cases Cited
- Ackermann v. Levine, 788 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. 1986) (article 10(a) permits service by mail)
- Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2004) (examined drafting history and signatories’ practice to conclude mailing is allowed)
- Nuovo Pignone, SpA v. STORMAN ASIA M/V, 310 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2002) (held article 10(a) does not permit service by mail)
- Bankston v. Toyota Motor Corp., 889 F.2d 172 (8th Cir. 1989) (refused to read article 10(a) as authorizing service by mail)
- Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (1988) (Hague Convention applies and compliance is mandatory)