Voice Tele Services Inc. v. Zee Telecoms Ltd.

Background

Voice Tele Services Inc. sued Zee Telecoms Ltd., a United Kingdom company, on claims for breach of contract and account stated. The complaint alleged that Zee failed to pay $350,378.93 for telecommunications services provided under the parties’ agreement. After Zee failed to appear at an initial pretrial conference, the court entered a default judgment in favor of Voice Tele Services on July 12, 2019. The opinion states that the judgment motion sought $373,132.75, including the alleged unpaid amount, interest, and costs.

Voice Tele Services later assigned its recovery rights, subject to subrogation, to Allied World Specialty Insurance Company. After a statutory demand was filed and served to enforce the judgment, Zee moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) to vacate the judgment. That rule permits relief from a final judgment if the judgment is void. Zee argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction because service of process was improper.

Service of Process

The court explained that service on a company in a foreign country is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h)(2), which incorporates Rule 4(f)(1). Because the United States and the United Kingdom are parties to the Hague Convention, service could be made through methods authorized by that convention, including methods allowed by the law of the country where service occurred. The court also explained that constitutional due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform interested parties about the action.

Under the United Kingdom’s Civil Procedure Rules and Companies Act 2006, a company may be served by leaving legal documents at its registered office. The process server stated that he left the summons, complaint, and an exhibit with Richard Cooper, identified as a director of Hold Everything, at 207 Regent Street, London, England, W1B 3HH. Zee did not dispute that this was its registered address.

Zee initially argued that the papers had been left with an unrelated company at the wrong office. After Voice Tele Services submitted declarations from Cooper, Zee acknowledged that it did not maintain a physical office there and instead used a virtual-office provider to maintain its registered address. Zee then argued that it had no direct contractual relationship with Hold Everything and had not authorized Hold Everything to accept service. Zee also disputed that the papers had actually been left with Cooper.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Zee failed to prove that service was improper. It found that the relevant question under United Kingdom law was whether the papers were left at Zee’s registered address, not whether Zee directly contracted with or expressly authorized Hold Everything. Because Zee registered 207 Regent Street as its business address, the court concluded that leaving the papers there was effective service. The court also found that service satisfied due process because Zee’s founder regularly retrieved mail from that office.

The court further held that the process server’s sworn statement created a presumption that service occurred as described. The founder’s statement that he never received a notification about the summons and complaint did not provide specific facts rebutting the process server’s account. The court also relied on an email from CityOffice stating that a process server had brought legal papers for Zee to the 207 Regent Street office and that the papers would have been held for collection or forwarded. The court found that Zee’s changing explanations justified discounting the founder’s denial, credited the process server’s affidavit, and found that the papers were left with Hold Everything at Zee’s registered business address.

Disposition

The court found that Zee was properly served under the Hague Convention and Rule 4(h)(2). Judge Jed S. Rakoff therefore denied Zee’s motion to vacate the default judgment and directed the Clerk of Court to close the docket entry for that motion.