Appel v. Hayut
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-06265
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Appel v. Hayut, Judge Cronan ruled Ronit D. Appel may again seek default against David Kazhdan after finding her mail service appeared proper.
Ronit D. Appel and Defendant David Kazhdan. The order addressed whether Appel could again seek a clerk’s certificate of default based on service through the Israeli Post.
What happened
In Appel v. Hayut, Ronit D. Appel asked the court to accept her service of the lawsuit on Defendant David Kazhdan and allow her to seek a clerk’s certificate of default. The clerk’s office had denied her request after her original filing appeared to show service by a process server.
Appel explained that Rimon Deliveries and Services, a delivery business, had used the Israeli Post to serve Kazhdan. The court said Israel does not object to service by mail under the Hague Convention and found that service by mail appeared to be allowed under both federal rules and Israeli law.
Judge John P. Cronan ruled that the service appeared to comply with the applicable standard, so Appel may again move for a clerk’s certificate of default against Kazhdan. The court did not enter a default judgment or issue the certificate itself.
The detailed version
- Appel v. Hayut · No. 1:20-cv-06265
- John Cronan
- Dec. 7, 2020
Background
Ronit D. Appel filed proof that Defendant David Kazhdan had been served with the summons and complaint and submitted a proposed clerk’s certificate of default. The clerk’s office denied the proposed certificate after Appel’s filing appeared to show that a process server had served Kazhdan. The court had then required Appel to explain why that method of service was proper or submit proof of proper service.
Appel responded that service had not been made by a process server. She said that Rimon Deliveries and Services, described as a delivery business, had carried out service through the Israeli Post.
Legal Analysis
The court considered Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. That provision allows judicial documents to be sent directly to people abroad by postal channels when the destination country does not object. The court explained, based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, that mail service requires both that the destination country not object and that applicable law authorize the service.
The court found the first condition satisfied because Israel does not object to service by mail under Article 10(a). For the second condition, Appel relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(2)(A), which permits service in the manner prescribed by the foreign country’s law for service in that country’s courts of general jurisdiction. The court noted that courts disagree about whether that rule permits service by international mail. It found persuasive an opinion reading the rule to permit any service method allowed by the recipient country’s law, including mail. Although Appel did not cite specific Israeli-law provisions, the court said it appeared that Israel allows service by mail.
Ruling and Effect
The court concluded that service through Rimon appeared to comply with the standard described in Water Splash. It therefore ruled that Appel may again move for a clerk’s certificate of default concerning Kazhdan. The order did not itself issue a certificate of default or enter a default judgment, and it did not decide the underlying claims.
Judge John P. Cronan signed the order on December 7, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.