Pesic v. Mauritius International Arbitration Centre Limited

Background

By an earlier order dated February 6, 2024, the Court denied without prejudice Pesic’s request for an alternative method of serving Defendant Barry Thomas Tilley. The Court had explained that Pesic had not shown that he first made any effort to serve Tilley under the Hague Service Convention, an international agreement governing service of legal documents across countries.

On February 22, 2024, Pesic, who was proceeding without a lawyer, asked the Court to assist with Hague service. Specifically, he asked the Court to direct the Clerk of Court to send, in duplicate, a completed model form, the summons, and the Third Amended Complaint to the Australian Central Authority.

Court’s Analysis

The Court stated that Article 3 of the Hague Convention does not impose a single obligation on a court to carry out service. Instead, service is generally the plaintiff’s responsibility. The Court held that this responsibility does not change because Pesic was representing himself. The Court noted that Pesic had the right to represent himself but, because he was not proceeding without payment of court fees, he could retain a lawyer to handle Hague service.

The Court also relied on the Southern District of New York Clerk’s Office Foreign Mailing Instructions, which state that litigants must transmit the completed forms and documents to be served. Pesic identified no authority requiring the Court or its Clerk’s Office to do so, and the Court found none.

Disposition

The Court DENIED Pesic’s request for the Court’s assistance in effectuating Hague Service. The Court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.