1 2 3 4 5 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 Dos Amigos, Inc., a California Case No.: 21cv231-JO-DDL 10 corporation, 11 GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION Plaintiff,

TO APPOINT SPECIAL PROCESS

12 v. SERVER 13 Embotelladora Aga del pacific, S.A. de 14 C.V., a corporation of Mexico, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Dos Amigos, Inc. filed its complaint on February 5, 2021. Dkt. 1. On June 18 16, 2021, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed 19 for failing to serve Defendant, a foreign corporation. Dkt. 3. On July 13, 2021, Plaintiff 20 filed a response to the OSC, requesting 90 more days to serve Defendant. Dkt. 4. After 21 more than 160 days had passed, Plaintiff had still not served the complaint. On December 22 20, 2021, the Court issued a second order to show cause why this case should not be 23 dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dkt. 5. Plaintiff did not respond to the second order to 24 show cause. After this case was transferred to the undersigned, Plaintiff filed an ex parte 25 motion requesting that the Court appoint a special process server to serve Defendant in 26 Mexico in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, which the Court construed 27 as a request for extension of time to serve Defendant. Dkt. 9. On October 14, 2022, 28 Plaintiff filed a renewed ex parte motion to appoint a special process server. Dkt. 10. 1 The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to appoint a special process server but clarifies 2 that such service must comply with the Hague Convention. Federal Rule of Civil 3 Procedure 4 authorizes service of process on foreign business entities “by any 4 internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as 5 those authorized by the Hague Convention.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1), 4(h)(2). Because 6 the United States and Mexico are both signatories to the Hague Convention, the Hague 7 Convention provides the exclusive means by which Plaintiff can serve Defendant. See 8 Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 468 U.S. 694, 706 (1988) (holding that the 9 Hague Convention is “the exclusive means of valid service” for entities in countries that 10 are signatories to the Hague Convention). Under the Hague Convention, service in Mexico 11 must be effected through Mexico’s Central Authority. OGM, Inc. v. Televisa, S.A. de C.V., 12 2009 WL 1025971, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2009); Wright v. Old Gringo Inc., 2018 WL 13 3584483, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 26, 2018). Here, service via a special process server is 14 permissible only insofar as the special process server complies with the Hague Convention. 15 Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to appoint a special process server for the 16 purpose of effecting service under the Hague Convention. 17 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion [Dkt. 10] and orders that APS 18 International, Ltd., including its designated agents, is appointed and authorized to effect 19 service of process in Mexico on Defendant Embotelladora Aga del Pacifico, S.A. de C.V. 20 Service shall be effected consistent with the requirements of the Hague Convention. 21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 23 Dated: October 24, 2022

24 ____________________ 25 Hon. Jinsook Ohta United States District Court 26 27 28