Live Brands Holdings v. Gastronomico Gracias a Dios

Background

Live Brands Holdings, LLC sued a Mexican corporation and four Mexican individuals. It asked the court for judicial assistance in serving those defendants under the Hague Convention on service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters.

Earlier, the plaintiff had asked for permission to use alternative service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) and for letters rogatory, which are formal requests for assistance from a foreign court or authority. Judge Gregory H. Woods denied those requests and directed the plaintiff to serve the defendants under the Hague Convention.

The plaintiff then retained a Mexican law firm to help comply with Mexico’s Central Authority requirements. According to the plaintiff, the Central Authority rejected the request and required the court to sign it and send it directly to the Central Authority. The plaintiff therefore asserted that it could not serve the Mexican defendants on its own.

Court’s Analysis

Judge Cronan concluded that the current record did not show that the plaintiff was unable to serve the defendants. The court explained that the Hague Convention provides several possible service methods: service through the receiving country’s Central Authority, service through consular channels, service by mail if the receiving country does not object, and service under the receiving country’s internal laws.

The plaintiff had tried the Central Authority method but had not explained why it could not use other methods. The court noted that, in an earlier filing, the plaintiff had stated that it attempted direct service on the individual defendants and suggested that this method might comply with Mexican law.

Ruling and Required Filings

The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for judicial assistance in effecting service under the Hague Convention without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 28.

Within two weeks, the plaintiff was ordered to submit: (1) written communication from Mexico’s Central Authority showing that it rejected the request and required the court to submit it, with a certified English translation if necessary; (2) a detailed explanation of whether the plaintiff attempted other service methods, supported by legal authority; and (3) legal authority addressing whether courts have permitted service in Mexico or another foreign country by having the court sign and deliver the request to the Central Authority.

The court also stated that the plaintiff could move for an order permitting other alternative service methods under the applicable provisions of Rule 4(f).