460 P.3d 764
Cal.2020Background:
- Rockefeller (California) and Changzhou SinoType (China) signed a 2008 MOU agreeing to California jurisdiction, arbitration in Los Angeles, and that notices/service would be sent in English via Federal Express (or similar) and e‑mail, deemed received three business days after deposit.
- Long‑form agreements were never executed; Rockefeller initiated arbitration under the MOU; SinoType did not appear; arbitrator awarded Rockefeller $414,601,200.
- Rockefeller filed to confirm the award in California and served the petition and summons by Federal Express and e‑mail per the MOU; the trial court confirmed the award after SinoType did not appear.
- SinoType later moved to set aside the confirmation judgment, arguing service was invalid because the Hague Service Convention governs transmittals abroad and China objected to Article 10 (mail service), so FedEx service to China was ineffective.
- The Court of Appeal sided with SinoType; the California Supreme Court granted review and reversed, holding the Convention did not apply because the parties waived formal service under California law in favor of their agreed notice method.
Issues:
| Issue | Rockefeller's Argument | SinoType's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Hague Service Convention preempt the parties’ contractual FedEx/email notice provision? | The parties waived formal service; the Convention applies only when forum law requires transmittal abroad, so it does not preempt the MOU. | The Convention governs because documents were transmitted abroad to China, which objected to Article 10, so FedEx service was invalid. | The Convention applies only when forum law requires formal service abroad. Because the parties waived formal service under California law, the Convention did not apply here. |
| Can parties by contract waive formal service and consent to California jurisdiction/alternate notice? | Yes: the MOU’s jurisdiction and notice clauses are an express, knowing waiver and consent to CA courts and to the agreed notification method. | No: treaty obligations should override a private contractual waiver. | Yes: parties may waive personal jurisdiction/notice; California statutes and precedent recognize contractual consent and §1290.4(a) gives effect to agreed service provisions. |
| If the Convention applied, would China’s Article 10 objection bar FedEx/mail service? | N/A (Rockefeller’s position: Convention not applicable). | Article 10 objection precludes service by mail/courier to China, rendering service ineffective. | If the Convention applied, China’s objection to Article 10 would preclude service by mail/courier; but the Convention was inapplicable on these facts. |
| Does failure to comply with the Convention void a judgment even if defendant had actual notice? | N/A (Rockefeller: waiver and actual notice cure). | Yes: failure to comply voids service and the judgment. | Failure to comply would void service where the Convention applies; because it did not apply here, the judgment stands subject to other issues on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Volkswagenwerk v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (Convention applies only when forum law requires transmittal abroad; "service of process" in technical sense)
- Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 137 S. Ct. 1504 (Convention does not interfere with postal service only if the receiving state does not object and relevant law authorizes mail)
- National Rental v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311 (parties to a contract may agree in advance to submit to jurisdiction and permit alternative notice)
- D. H. Overmyer Co. v. Frick Co., 405 U.S. 174 (due‑process rights to notice and hearing may be waived if waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)