Signify North America Corporation v. Axis Lighting Inc.
1:19-cv-05516
S.D.N.Y.Oct 8, 2019Background:
- Signify sued Axis for patent infringement and served Axis on June 25, 2019, via a Québec bailiff who delivered summons and complaint to Carmen Vizitiu, a human-resources employee at Axis’s Québec headquarters.
- The bailiff’s affidavit stated Vizitiu “appeared in care and in control and/or management and authorized to accept service” on behalf of Axis; a clerk’s default issued July 26, 2019.
- Axis’s counsel appeared August 15 and moved August 16 to dismiss for improper service (Rule 12(b)(5)) and failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)); the amended complaint filed September 6 mooted the 12(b)(6) challenge, leaving the service issue.
- The court analyzed service under Rule 4(h)(2) and Rule 4(f), concluding the Hague Convention governs service on a defendant in Canada and Article 10(b) permits service pursuant to the receiving state’s internal rules.
- Under Québec law (Code of Civil Procedure art. 125), notification to a legal person may be made by leaving the document with a person appearing able to give it to an officer/director; the court found the bailiff’s delivery to Vizitiu satisfied that rule.
- The court rejected Axis’s contentions that Article 5 (central-authority transmission), lack of Vizitiu’s authority, or absence of French translation rendered service improper, and denied Axis’s motion to dismiss.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of service under Hague Convention/Rule 4 | Service via Québec bailiff to HR who appeared authorized was proper under Article 10(b) and Québec procedure | Service was improper; Article 5 (central authority) required and Vizitiu lacked authority | Court: Service valid under Article 10(b) and Québec Code art.125; bailiff affidavit sufficient |
| Translation requirement | No translation required for service under Article 10(b); Québec rules and Charter do not bar English service | Documents must be translated into French under Québec law or Hague Article 5 requirements | Court: No translation required for Article 10(b) service; Québec Charter does not compel translation for service here |
Key Cases Cited
- Burda Media, Inc. v. Viertel, 417 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2005) (explaining Article 10 permits service pursuant to receiving state’s internal law)
- Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 137 S. Ct. 1504 (2017) (holding Articles 10(b) and 10(c) are methods of service permitted by the Hague Convention)
- Heredia v. Transport S.A.S., Inc., 101 F. Supp. 2d 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (holding documents served in Québec under Article 10 need not be translated into French)