Patrick's Restaurant, LLC v. Singh
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:18-cv-00764
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Patrick’s Restaurant v. Singh, Judge Menendez granted email service because Hague Convention service had stalled and Singh knew about the lawsuit.
Patrick’s Restaurant, LLC may serve Sujit Kumar Singh with the summons and complaint by email; the order concerns service of process and does not decide the underlying breach-of-contract claim.
What happened
Patrick’s Restaurant, LLC sued Sujit Kumar Singh for allegedly failing to make a capital contribution promised in exchange for a business membership interest. Singh had not been formally served after nearly seven months of attempted service under the Hague Convention, but he knew about the case and had contacted a lawyer about it.
The court concluded that federal procedural rules did not require Patrick’s Restaurant to finish or exhaust the Hague Convention process before requesting another method of service. It also concluded that email service was not prohibited by an international agreement, even though India had objected to certain other methods of service.
Judge Katherine Menendez granted Patrick’s Restaurant’s motion for alternative service and authorized it to serve Singh with the summons and complaint by email.
The detailed version
- Patrick's Restaurant, LLC v. Singh · No. 0:18-cv-00764
- Eric Tostrud
- Oct. 26, 2018
Background
Patrick’s Restaurant, LLC filed a breach-of-contract complaint against Sujit Kumar Singh. The restaurant alleged that Singh agreed to make a significant capital contribution in exchange for a membership interest in the business, but refused to make the payment.
Singh had not been formally served. Patrick’s Restaurant first sent him the summons and complaint by Federal Express and email and also attempted service through procedures under the Hague Convention on service abroad. Nearly seven months after beginning the Hague Convention process, Singh still had not been served. The opinion states that Singh knew about the lawsuit, had received the case documents, had retained counsel, and had not agreed to waive formal service.
Legal standard and analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) governs service on an individual in a foreign country. Rule 4(f)(3) permits service by another method ordered by the court if that method is not prohibited by an international agreement.
The court held that Patrick’s Restaurant did not have to exhaust the Hague Convention procedures before seeking alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3). The court explained that the rule requires only that the court order the method and that an international agreement not prohibit it. The court also stated that, even if exhaustion were required, the lengthy failure to complete service through the Hague Convention supported using an additional method.
The court determined that email service was not prohibited by Article X of the Hague Convention or another international agreement. Although India had objected to service through postal channels or through certain officials and attorneys, the court concluded that Article X did not address email service and did not expressly prohibit it. Because Singh knew about the case and email was likely to reach him, the court found email service appropriate.
Disposition
Judge Katherine Menendez granted Plaintiff Patrick’s Restaurant’s Motion for Alternative Service. The order authorized Patrick’s Restaurant to serve Singh with the summons and complaint by email.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.