Asia Maritime Pacific Chartering Ltd. v. Comercializadora Columbia S.A. de C.V.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-10789
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Asia Maritime v. Comercializadora Columbia, Judge Abrams denied Asia Maritime’s request to serve its arbitration petition by email, without prejudice to renewal.
Asia Maritime Pacific Chartering Ltd. must first attempt to serve Comercializadora Columbia S.A. de C.V. through procedures authorized by the Hague Convention before renewing its request for alternative service. The ruling concerns service of the petition to compel arbitration and does not decide whether arbitration must occur.
What happened
Asia Maritime Pacific Chartering Ltd. asked the court for permission to serve its petition to compel arbitration on Comercializadora Columbia S.A. de C.V. by email. The respondent is located in Mexico.
Asia Maritime argued that service under the Hague Convention could cause substantial delays and that the respondent had an active email account. The court noted that Mexico has objected to certain alternative service methods under the Convention and that courts disagree about whether email service is allowed in these circumstances.
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied the request without prejudice to renewal because Asia Maritime had not first attempted service through procedures clearly authorized by the Hague Convention. The court directed Asia Maritime to attempt service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(1) and set deadlines for additional filings and any opposition.
The detailed version
- Asia Maritime Pacific Chartering Ltd. v. Comercializadora Columbia S.A. de C.V. · No. 1:22-cv-10789
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 23, 2023
Background
Asia Maritime Pacific Chartering Ltd. petitioned to compel arbitration and asked for permission to serve the petition on Comercializadora Columbia S.A. de C.V. by email. The respondent is located in Mexico. Asia Maritime had not attempted service under the Hague Convention, which governs international service of judicial documents and to which Mexico is a signatory.
Asia Maritime argued that service through the Hague Convention could involve unexplained requirements and cause substantial delays. It also asserted that email service was appropriate because the respondent had an active email account.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) allows a court to order service on an individual in a foreign country by means not prohibited by an international agreement. Courts generally consider whether the party seeking alternative service has reasonably tried to serve the defendant and whether court intervention is necessary.
The court explained that Mexico has objected to alternative service methods under Article 10 of the Hague Convention. It also noted that courts in the Southern District of New York disagree about whether email service is permitted when the destination country has made that objection. The court did not resolve that issue here.
Ruling
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied Asia Maritime’s request for alternative service without prejudice to renewal. The court held that Asia Maritime first had to attempt service through procedures clearly authorized by the Hague Convention. The court stated that a desire to move quickly was not enough to bypass those procedures.
The court directed Asia Maritime to attempt service under Rule 4(f)(1), which concerns service through internationally agreed methods. Asia Maritime was also directed to serve the order and other required documents on the respondent as required by that rule. The court set February 13, 2023, as the deadline for Asia Maritime to file additional materials supporting its arbitration petition; any opposition would be due two weeks after Asia Maritime filed proof of service, and any reply would be due one week after that.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.