Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon
137 S. Ct. 1504
| SCOTUS | 2017Background
- Water Splash (Texas company) sued former employee Tara Menon (resident of Canada) in Texas state court alleging employment-related torts and sought to serve process by mail.
- Texas trial court entered default judgment after Menon did not appear; Menon moved to set aside judgment claiming improper service under the Hague Service Convention.
- The Texas Court of Appeals held the Convention prohibits service by mail; the state supreme court denied review, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- Article 10 of the Hague Service Convention contains 10(a) ("freedom to send judicial documents by postal channels") and 10(b)/(c) (explicitly referring to "effect[ing] service" through officials); the question was whether 10(a) covers service by mail.
- The U.S. Supreme Court analyzed treaty text, structure, drafting history, Executive Branch practice, and foreign signatories’ positions to resolve the meaning of Article 10(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Hague Service Convention prohibits service of process by mail | Water Splash: Article 10(a) "send judicial documents by postal channels" includes service by mail; Convention does not prohibit it if receiving state hasn’t objected and local law permits | Menon: Article 10(a) concerns non-service transmissions or only post-answer documents; it does not permit service of process by mail | Court held Article 10(a) encompasses service by mail; Convention does not bar service by mail if the receiving state has not objected and otherwise-applicable law permits it |
| Whether Article 10(a) is superfluous if it pertains to service | Water Splash: 10(a) must apply to service to avoid rendering it meaningless relative to Article 1’s scope limitation | Menon: 10(a) should be read differently from 10(b)/(c); it need not cover service of process | Court agreed 10(a) pertains to service to avoid superfluity and fits treaty structure |
| Whether extratextual sources support including service within "send" | Water Splash: drafting history, long-standing U.S. Executive position, and foreign courts/signatories interpret "send/adresser" to include service | Menon: textual distinction between "send" and "serve" creates ambiguity | Court found extratextual evidence (drafting history, Executive Branch, other signatories) supports Water Splash and resolves any ambiguity in favor of permitting service by mail |
| Whether Article 10(a) affirmatively authorizes service by mail | Water Splash: Article 10(a) does not affirmatively authorize but preserves freedom to use postal channels absent objection; domestic law also must permit method | Menon: argued Convention prohibits it (thus no need to consider domestic law) | Court held Article 10(a) does not authorize per se; service by mail is permissible only if receiving state hasn’t objected and method is authorized under applicable (e.g., state) law |
Key Cases Cited
- Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (treaty interpretation principles; Convention applies only to documents transmitted for service abroad)
- Bankston v. Toyota Motor Corp., 889 F.2d 172 (8th Cir. decision holding Convention prohibits service by mail)
- Nuovo Pignone, SpA v. Storman Asia M/V, 310 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. decision holding Convention prohibits service by mail)
- Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. decision holding Convention permits service by mail)
- Ackermann v. Levine, 788 F.2d 830 (2d Cir. decision supporting service by mail under the Convention)
- Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (gives weight to Executive Branch treaty interpretations)