Telecom Business Solution, LLC v. Terra Towers Corp.

Background

Petitioners Telecom Business Solution, LLC, LATAM Towers, LLC, and AMLQ Holdings (Cay), Ltd. are involved in an ongoing arbitration with Terra Towers Corp. and TBS Management, S.A. (collectively, “Terra”) and DT Holdings, Inc. The arbitration concerns a 2015 shareholders agreement involving Continental Towers LATAM Holdings, Ltd. The tribunal issued several partial final awards, and the court confirmed the first four. The petition to confirm the fifth partial final award remained pending.

The petitioners filed a motion seeking an anti-suit injunction and civil contempt sanctions against Terra, DT Holdings, and affiliated non-parties, including Jorge Hernandez. The court had previously granted part of that requested relief and imposed civil contempt sanctions against Hernandez, among others. The petitioners also sought to serve Hernandez with the petition to confirm the fifth partial final award.

Attempted Service and Motion to Quash

On March 28, 2025, a process server delivered the contempt motion, the petition to confirm the fifth award, and related documents to Hernandez’s son at a California property believed to be associated with Hernandez. Hernandez asserted that he lived in Guatemala, that the California property was not his dwelling or usual place of residence, and that his son was not authorized to accept service for him. He did not dispute that he had actual notice of both documents.

Hernandez moved to quash, meaning to invalidate, the attempted service. The petitioners argued that the motion was untimely, but the court rejected that argument. The court also noted that Local Civil Rule 83.6 required personal service of the contempt motion, together with a copy of that rule, in the manner required for serving a summons. The petitioners acknowledged that they had not provided Hernandez with a copy of the rule when they attempted service.

Court’s Analysis

The court declined to excuse the missing copy of Local Civil Rule 83.6. It explained that the rule informs the recipient about the procedures and protections applicable to a contempt proceeding. Because the rule was not provided with the contempt motion, the court concluded that Hernandez had not been effectively served. The court therefore did not decide whether delivery to Hernandez’s son at the California property otherwise would have satisfied the rule for service at a person’s dwelling or usual place of residence.

The court then considered alternative service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), which permits service outside the United States by another method ordered by the court. The court found that the petitioners had reasonably attempted service and that court intervention was warranted. It also found no applicable international agreement prohibiting email service and concluded that email was reasonably likely to notify Hernandez, particularly because the record showed prior emails sent to and received from the address jhernandez@terratowerscorp.com.

Disposition

The court granted Hernandez’s motion to quash to the extent it ruled that he was not effectively served with the contempt motion and the petition to confirm the fifth partial final award. It vacated the civil contempt sanctions previously imposed against Hernandez personally. The court authorized the petitioners to serve Hernandez by email with the contempt motion, a copy of Local Civil Rule 83.6, and the petition to confirm the fifth award.

The order gave Hernandez seven days after email service to oppose the contempt motion and fourteen days to submit any further opposition to the petition to confirm the fifth award or any motion to vacate that award. The court’s ruling addressed service and the effect of the defective service; it did not decide the underlying contempt motion or whether the fifth award should be confirmed.