Viral DRM LLC v. Jose Manuel Romero

Background

Plaintiffs sought permission to serve Defendants Jose Manuel Romero and TV Azteca SAB DE CV by email, WhatsApp, and website posting. The opinion states that Romero and TV Azteca reside in Mexico, which is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (the Hague Service Convention).

Parties’ Arguments

Plaintiffs acknowledged that Mexico has objected to alternative methods of service under the Convention and that service through Mexico’s Central Authority is the exclusive method available under that objection. Plaintiffs nevertheless argued that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) permits a court to order other means of serving an international defendant when those means are not prohibited by an international agreement.

The court noted that district courts in the Ninth Circuit have disagreed about whether email service is allowed when the receiving country is a Hague Convention signatory that has not agreed to email service. The court relied on its earlier conclusion that service must use the methods authorized by the Convention and its signatories. It also explained that a Ninth Circuit decision involving Costa Rica did not resolve this issue because Costa Rica was not a Convention signatory.

Ruling

The court held that, because Mexico had not agreed to service by email, WhatsApp, or website posting, the Convention prohibited those methods unless an exception applied. The opinion identified possible exceptions, including an urgent case, an improper refusal by the receiving country to complete service, or a failure by the receiving Central Authority to return a required certificate for more than six months. Plaintiffs did not argue that any exception applied.

Judge Rita F. Lin denied Plaintiffs’ motion for alternative service, without prejudice to renewing it if one of the identified exceptions becomes applicable.