Ronald B. Brockmeyer Eromedia, Ltd v. David C. May, and Marquis Publications, Ltd

Opinion by Judge SILVERMAN; Dissent by Judge WILLIAM A. FLETCHER

OPINION

We must decide whether service of process by an American plaintiff on an English defendant through regular mail to a post office box is valid under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents 1 (“Hague Convention”). We hold that such service is valid because Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention allows for service by mail and England’s domestic laws do not prohibit service by mail to a post office box.

I. BACKGROUND

Ronald B. Brockmeyer is the owner of the trademark <<0>>, under which he publishes and distributes various forms of media in adult entertainment and novelties. On August 3, 1998, Brockmeyer, and his company, Eromedia, filed a trademark infringement action against several defendants, including Marquis Publications.

*1225 Brockmeyer mailed a copy of the summons and complaint to Marquis, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of England, at a post office box address listed in the 1997 edition of Marquis Magazine. Brockmeyer eventually obtained a default judgment against Marquis for $424,000.

Marquis moved to set aside the default judgment on…

Dissenting:

This case substantially expands the ability of federal plaintiffs to serve process on foreign defendants. In a dramatic departure from existing law, the majority holds that a plaintiff in federal district court can serve process on a defendant in England by ordinary first class mail sent from the United States. Not registered mail, not FedEx or DHL, just ordinary first class mail. The kind of mail for which there is no indication that the addressee ever received it. The kind of mail that cannot be used in federal district court for service of process within the United States.

The majority bases its opinion on Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention, which provides that the Convention “shall not interfere with ... the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad” (emphasis added). I agree with the majority that the meaning of the term “send,” as used in Article 10(a), includes the meaning “serve.” But this conclusion tells us only that the Hague Convention does not prohibit service by mail abroad. It tells us nothing about whether there is affirmative authorization for ordinary international first class mail service in federal…

361 F.3d 1222 Ronald B. BROCKMEYER; Eromedia, Ltd, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. David C. MAY, Defendant, and Marquis Publications, Ltd, Defendant-Appellant. No. 02-56283. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 9, 2003. Filed March 24, 2004. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Albert S. Israel, Esq., Long Beach, CA, for the defendant-appellant. Dennis H. Cavanaugh, Esq., New York, NY, for the plaintiffs-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-99-04918-ABC. Before: SILVERMAN, W.A. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge SILVERMAN; Dissent by Judge WILLIAM A. FLETCHER OPINION SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge. 1 We must decide whether service of process by an American plaintiff on an English defendant through regular mail to a post office box is valid under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents 1 ("Hague Convention"). We hold that such service is valid because Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention allows for service by mail and England's domestic laws do not prohibit service by mail to a post…