List v. Carwell

Background

The action arose from a 2015 automobile accident in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Jason List was a passenger in a vehicle that collided with a vehicle driven by Robert Carwell. The opinion states that Carwell was employed by 0820527 B C LTD, doing business as Let It Ride Carriers, and was acting within the scope of that employment. Jason List was taken to an emergency room by ambulance.

Jason and Alicia List brought claims for negligence, negligence per se, respondeat superior, and loss of consortium. Carwell was served on September 5, 2018, and the clerk entered default against him on October 11, 2018. The plaintiffs had not successfully served Let It Ride.

Attempts to Serve Let It Ride

The plaintiffs attempted service at a Forest Grove, British Columbia, address listed on Carwell’s insurance card, provided to law enforcement, and listed in a federal motor-carrier database. A woman at the address said she believed Let It Ride was her father’s company and that he was not home. The plaintiffs also attempted service at an address in Lone Butte, British Columbia, but the current property owner did not know Let It Ride, and neighbors said a trucking company had previously operated there.

The plaintiffs contacted the central authority in British Columbia under the Hague Service Convention, but were told that alternative service methods were not available through that authority. They also contacted the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation, the Minnesota and South Dakota secretaries of state, and the Canada Registrar of Companies. The opinion states that none of those offices had a listing for Let It Ride. A company listed as Let It Ride’s process agent said it no longer represented Let It Ride, had been unable to contact it, and had received returned mail. Further attempts at the Forest Grove address were unsuccessful, and the process server believed Let It Ride was avoiding service.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(2) permits service on a foreign corporation in the manner provided by Rule 4(f), except for personal delivery. Rule 4(f)(3) allows a court to order another method of service if the method is directed by the court, is not prohibited by an international agreement, and satisfies constitutional due process. Due process requires a method reasonably calculated to inform the defendant about the lawsuit and give it an opportunity to respond.

The court explained that the Hague Service Convention does not apply when the address of the person to be served is unknown. The court found that the plaintiffs had diligently pursued reasonable ways to locate Let It Ride and that further ordinary service attempts would be futile. The court also found that the Convention did not specifically prohibit service by publication and that British Columbia law allows alternative service, including publication, in circumstances involving an impracticable personal service, a diligent but unsuccessful search, or evasion of service.

Ruling

The court granted the plaintiffs’ Motion for Alternative Service on 0820527 B C LTD, doing business as Let It Ride Carriers. It required the plaintiffs to begin publication within 30 days. The notice must follow British Columbia’s Form 10, appear on Sundays for four consecutive weeks in The Province, and be published in a manner reasonably calculated to notify Let It Ride. The court also required the plaintiffs, within 14 days, to mail copies of the order, summons, and complaint to Let It Ride’s last known mailing address and its insurance carrier.

The order states that failure to comply could lead to appropriate remedies or sanctions, including costs, fines, attorneys’ fees and disbursements, waiver of objections, limits on evidence, striking of pleadings, dismissal, or default judgment.