Cunningham v. General Motors LLC
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:20-cv-03097
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Cunningham v. General Motors LLC: Judge Hellerstein upheld email service on Ellinghaus under Rule 4(f)(3), rejecting objections based on international and German law.
The ruling directly affected the plaintiffs and Uwe Ellinghaus by confirming email service on Ellinghaus, while allowing that service to be replaced if he provided a convenient physical or email address within 10 days. It also rejected the objection filed by counsel for General Motors LLC, Shannon E. Wallace, and Tonya Hallett.
What happened
In Cunningham v. General Motors LLC, the plaintiffs asked to serve Uwe Ellinghaus by email. The court had already approved that method, and counsel for some defendants objected, arguing that international law and German service rules barred it.
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) permits a court to order service on someone in another country if the method is not prohibited by an international agreement and satisfies basic fairness requirements. Germany’s objection to certain Hague Service Convention methods did not extend to email, which the Convention does not specifically address.
Judge Hellerstein rejected the objection and confirmed that email service was proper because the address came from Ellinghaus’s counsel and tracking showed that Ellinghaus opened the email. The court said that, if Ellinghaus provided a convenient physical or email address within 10 days, the plaintiffs would have to serve him there instead.
The detailed version
- Cunningham v. General Motors LLC · No. 1:20-cv-03097
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Aug. 17, 2020
Background
Elva Constance Cunningham and Daria Ross sued General Motors LLC, Uwe Ellinghaus, Melody Lee, Nathan Tan, Shannon E. Wallace, Tonya Hallett, and John and Jane Doe 1, 2, 3. The order concerns service of process on Ellinghaus. On August 12, 2020, the court granted the plaintiffs’ request to serve Ellinghaus by email. Counsel for General Motors LLC, Wallace, and Hallett, but not counsel for Ellinghaus, later objected. The opinion states that both sides believed, but were not entirely sure, that Ellinghaus was residing in Germany.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) allows a court to authorize a method of serving an individual in a foreign country when the method is not prohibited by an international agreement and satisfies constitutional due-process requirements. The United States and Germany are parties to the Hague Service Convention. Germany objected to the Convention’s Article 10 methods of service, but Article 10 does not specifically mention email.
The court relied on prior Southern District of New York decisions holding that an objection to particular Article 10 methods does not prevent a court from ordering another method under Rule 4(f)(3), including email, when email is not specifically covered by the objection. The court therefore concluded that email service was not prohibited by an international agreement.
Due process and ruling
The court stated that email service alone satisfies due process when the plaintiff shows that the email is likely to reach the defendant. Here, the email address was provided by the same counsel who objected to email service. The plaintiffs’ email-tracking information also indicated that Ellinghaus opened the email 12 minutes after it was sent.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein rejected the defendants’ objection and confirmed that the plaintiffs’ request and the court’s approval of email service complied with Rule 4(f)(3). The court further ordered that, if Ellinghaus notified the court within 10 days of a physical or email address where service would be convenient, the plaintiffs had to serve him at that address, replacing the email service already completed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.