Global Air Charters Inc. v. Mayfair Jets DWC-LLC

Background

Global Air Charters Inc. sued Mayfair Jets DWC-LLC after their business relationship deteriorated. Global Air sent Mayfair a copy of the summons and complaint and asked Mayfair to waive formal service. Mayfair’s counsel said he was not authorized to waive service.

Global Air told the court that Mayfair is domiciled in the United Arab Emirates and that service under United Arab Emirates law would require using local courts. According to Global Air, that process would require letters of rogatory through diplomatic channels, take approximately 8 to 12 months, and cost at least $7,125. Global Air asked for permission to serve Mayfair by personal courier or delivery, international mail, or email to Mohamed Hamed Ahmed Nasr.

Legal standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) allows a court to order another method of serving a defendant located outside the United States, as long as the method is not prohibited by federal law or an international agreement and satisfies constitutional due process. Due process requires a method reasonably calculated to inform the defendant about the case and give it an opportunity to respond.

The court explained that a party does not have to complete every ordinary method of international service before seeking alternative service. But courts generally require evidence that the party reasonably attempted service and that court intervention is necessary.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Global Air reasonably attempted to serve Mayfair by sending the summons and complaint to Mayfair’s counsel and requesting a waiver. The court also found that service through the United Arab Emirates courts would involve active litigation there, letters of rogatory, substantial expense, and a lengthy delay. These circumstances made alternative service appropriate.

The court determined that the United Arab Emirates is not a signatory to the Hague Convention and that its research did not identify another international agreement or federal law prohibiting service by mail or email. The court further found that email to Mr. Nasr was reasonably likely to reach Mayfair because Global Air had exchanged substantial email correspondence with him and Global Air’s chief financial officer identified him as one of Mayfair’s principals or directors.

Disposition

Judge Shannon G. Elkins GRANTED Global Air’s Motion for Leave to Serve Summons and Complaint by Other Means. The order permits Global Air to serve Mayfair by personal courier and/or personal delivery, certified international mail to Mayfair’s business address listed in its United Arab Emirates business registration, and email to Mr. Nasr at m.hamed@mayfairjets.com. The order addressed service procedure and did not decide the underlying dispute between the companies.