Copragri S.A. v. Agribusiness United DMCC

Background

Copragri S.A. filed a petition to vacate an arbitration award and sought permission to serve that petition on Agribusiness United DMCC by email under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), which allows a court to authorize another method of serving a party located outside the United States when an international agreement does not prohibit that method.

Copragri had attempted personal service in New York through CT Corporation Services, believing that company was Agribusiness’s service agent. CT Corporation Services later stated that it was no longer authorized to act for Agribusiness. Copragri also attempted foreign service through the court clerk, who mailed the petition by Federal Express to two addresses in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The opinion states that Agribusiness had used three email addresses in communications with Copragri.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that courts have broad discretion to order alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3). Any authorized method must satisfy constitutional notice requirements by being reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to inform the interested party that the action is pending. The court also stated that the United Arab Emirates is not a signatory to the Hague Convention or another international agreement that prohibits service by email.

Ruling

The court ordered Copragri to attempt service of the petition by email to “abou@agribiz.ae,” “oper@agribiz.ae,” and “noreply@agribiz.ae” by October 5, 2020. It further ordered Copragri to file a status letter by October 19, 2020, stating whether it received any responses, including automatic or error responses, to those emails. Judge Lorna G. Schofield did not rule on the merits of Copragri’s petition to vacate the arbitration award.