Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon

Last updated
Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 22, 2017
Decided May 22, 2017
Full case nameWater Splash, Inc., Petitioner v. Tara Menon
Docket no. 16-254
Citations581 U.S. ___ ( more )
137 S. Ct. 1504; 197 L. Ed. 2d 826
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Case opinion
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters

Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Hague Service Convention permits service of judicial process abroad by mail, provided that the country in which the service takes place has not objected to service by mail, and service by mail is authorized in the country where the litigation is pending. [1]

Contents

The Hague Service Convention (formally called the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters) is an international treaty promulgated by the Hague Conference on Private International Law. The United States, along with dozens of other countries, is a party to the convention. The convention establishes procedures for the service of process in one country relating to civil or commercial litigation pending in another where both countries are parties to the convention.

The default procedure authorized by the convention is to effectuate service through a "central authority" to be established by the government of each member country. Certain alternative methods (called article 8 or article 10 methods, based on their source in the convention) may also be allowed provided that the country where the litigation is pending allows that method of service, and the country where service is to be made has not objected to that method. Article 10 of the convention states (in its English version) that legal documents may be "sent" by mail. International review commissions of the Hague Service Convention and many countries that are party to the convention understood this provision as authorizing service of process by mail (unless the receiving country filed an objection to this method of service, which Canada had not done). In the United States, however, there was a split of opinions on this question among state and federal courts throughout the country. [2]

Background of the case

This case arose Water Splash, Inc.–a water playground equipment manufacturer based in New York [3] –sued Tara Menon–a Canadian citizen living in Quebec–in a Texas state court located in Galveston, Texas. [4] The lawsuit claimed that while Menon was working as a sales representative for Water Splash, she also worked for competitor company South Pool and misused Water Splash's designs and drawings for the competitor's benefit. [5]

Menon maintained she never worked for a company called Water Splash Inc. but that she was an independent contractor and that the owner of Water Splash misrepresented himself and his company to her. The owner of Water Splash was a Canadian/Turkish citizen living in Montreal Canada. She was owed substantial monies for numerous contracts for which she was never paid by his Canadian company ABC Waterplay Inc., based in Montreal Canada. She claimed the lawsuit was an attempt to intimidate and avoid payments she was owed. She sued the owner of ABC Waterplay and Water Splash, Gokan Celik, in Montreal Superior court and had been paid a settlement in 2015.

Water Splash had to serve process (the summons and complaint) upon Menon in order for its case to proceed. The Texas trial court judge signed an order allowing Water Splash to serve Menon in Canada through several means, including by certified mail. Service was made as the court directed, but Menon failed to answer or appear, and the court granted a default judgment in favor of Water Splash enjoining her from a variety of business activities and ordering her to pay $60,000 in damages, $60,000 in punitive damages, $32,000 in attorney's fees, interest, and costs of court. [4] Menon then filed an answer in the case and a motion to set aside the default judgment against her, arguing that the service of process by mail was not authorized by the Hague Service Convention or by Texas state law; the trial court denied the motion and allowed the default judgment to remain. Menon appealed to the 14th Texas Court of Appeals in Houston, which reversed the trial court's default judgment by a 2-1 split decision. The majority opinion held that Article 10 of the Hague Convention does not authorize service of process by mail in cases covered by the convention. The dissenting opinion would have held that the Hague Service Convention does authorize service of process by mail in cases covered by the convention.

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the question, because of the inconsistency of lower court decisions.

Water Splash argued in the United States Supreme Court that the Hague Service Convention itself authorized service of process by mail making Texas service of process law irrelevant as to whether the default judgment was valid. In contrast, Menon argued that the convention did not authorize service of process by mail and that even if the convention permitted signatory countries under their local law to authorize service of process by mail, Texas law did not authorize service by mail and therefore no matter how the convention was interpreted the default judgment was invalid because it was based on improper service of process by mail which was authorized neither by the convention nor by Texas law.

The Hague Conference and the Solicitor General filed amicus curiae briefs arguing that the Hague Service Convention permits signatory countries to authorize, under the signatories countries' local laws, service of process by mail. That is, the amicus curiae briefs argued that the convention does not itself authorize service of process between signatory countries by mail but permits signatory countries to adopt laws allowing for service of process, pursuant to the local laws, by mail. Oral argument was held on March 22, 2017. Jeremy Gaston of Houston, Texas, argued for Water Splash. Timothy A. Hootman of Houston, Texas, argued for Menon. Elaine J. Goldenberg of Washington D.C. argued for amicus curiae.

Opinion of the court

Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court, which was unanimous (except that Justice Neil Gorsuch, who joined the court after this case was orally argued, did not participate). [1] The Supreme Court vacated the Texas Court of Appeals' decision and held that international service of process by mail in a Hague Convention signatory country is permitted (but not authorized) by the convention, as long as the receiving country has not objected to that method of service.

In holding that Article 10(a) allows service of process by mail, the court reasoned that "the scope of the Convention is limited to service of documents" and that Article 10's reference to "sending" documents by mail must, therefore, refer to a method of service. [6] The opinion also relied on the drafting history of the convention, the executive branch's understanding of the treaty when it was negotiated, and the current views of the United States Department of State, as well as the understandings of other countries party to the treaty, all of which supported the court's interpretation. [7]

As for the important distinction between “authorizing” and “permitting” service of process by mail, the opinion states: “In short, the traditional tools of treaty interpretation unmistakably demonstrate that Article 10(a) encompasses service by mail. To be clear, this does not mean that the convention affirmatively authorizes service by mail. Article 10(a) simply provides that, as long as the receiving state does not object, the convention does not ‘interfere with … the freedom’ to serve documents through postal channels. In other words, in cases governed by the Hague Service Convention, service by mail is permissible if two conditions are met: first, the receiving state has not objected to service by mail; and second, service by mail is authorized under otherwise-applicable law.” The authorize/permit distinction thus puts the focus on whether the local law where a lawsuit is pending (in this case, Texas) authorizes service of process by mail; if it does, then service of process by mail is permitted under the convention although the convention itself does not authorize service by mail. Because of this, the court's opinion did not resolve whether the default judgment against Menon should be set aside, and therefore, the case was remanded to the Texas 14th Court of Appeals to determine that state-law question. [8] On remand, the Texas 14th Court of Appeals concluded that Texas law does not authorize service of process by mail and in a unanimous opinion reversed the trial court and set aside the default judgment. [9]

Related Research Articles

The LaGrand case was a legal action heard before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which concerned the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. In the case, the ICJ ruled that its own temporary court orders were legally binding and that the rights contained in the convention could not be denied by the application of domestic legal procedures.

Service of process is the procedure by which a party to a lawsuit gives an appropriate notice of initial legal action to another party, court, or administrative body in an effort to exercise jurisdiction over that person so as to force that person to respond to the proceeding before the court, body, or other tribunal.

<i>Res judicata</i> Claim preclusion in law

Res judicata (RJ) or res iudicata, also known as claim preclusion, is the Latin term for matter decided and refers to either of two concepts in both civil law and common law legal systems: a case in which there has been a final judgment and that is no longer subject to appeal; and the legal doctrine meant to bar relitigation of a claim between the same parties.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case ruling in 1983 that the one-house legislative veto violated the constitutional separation of powers.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Geneva Conventions ratified by the U.S.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards</span> International treaty within the UN framework

The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, commonly known as the New York Convention, was adopted by a United Nations diplomatic conference on 10 June 1958 and entered into force on 7 June 1959. The Convention requires courts of contracting states to give effect to private agreements to arbitrate and to recognize and enforce arbitration awards made in other contracting states. Widely considered the foundational instrument for international arbitration, it applies to arbitrations that are not considered as domestic awards in the state where recognition and enforcement is sought.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hague Service Convention</span> 1965 multilateral treaty

The Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, more commonly called the Hague Service Convention, is a multilateral treaty that was adopted in The Hague, The Netherlands, on 15 November 1965 by member states of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. It came into existence to give litigants a reliable and efficient means of serving the documents on parties living, operating or based in another country. The provisions of the convention apply to service of process in civil and commercial matters but not criminal matters. Also, Article 1 states that the Convention shall not apply if the address of the person to be served with the document is not known.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hague Evidence Convention</span> 1970 multilateral treaty

The Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters—more commonly referred to as the Hague Evidence Convention—is a multilateral treaty which was drafted under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCPIL). The treaty was negotiated in 1967 and 1968 and signed in The Hague on 18 March 1970. It entered into force in 1972. It allows transmission of letters of request from one signatory state to another signatory state without recourse to consular and diplomatic channels. Inside the US, obtaining evidence under the Evidence Convention can be compared to comity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Service Regulation</span>

The Service Regulation, officially the Council Regulation (EC) No. 1393/2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, is a European Union regulation in the field of judicial cooperation. It allows service of judicial documents from one member state to another without recourse to consular and diplomatic channels.

MANual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U.S. 478 (1962), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that magazines consisting largely of photographs of nude or near-nude male models are not obscene within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1461. It was the first case in which the Court engaged in plenary review of a Post Office Department order holding obscene matter "nonmailable."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jerry Edwin Smith</span> American judge

Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Soering v United Kingdom 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (1989) is a landmark judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which established that extradition of a German national to the United States to face charges of capital murder and the potential exposure of said citizen to the death row phenomenon violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) guaranteeing the right against inhuman and degrading treatment. In addition to the precedent established by the judgment, the judgment specifically resulted in the United States and the State of Virginia committing to not seeking the death penalty against the German national involved in the case, and he was eventually extradited to the United States.

Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that held even when a treaty constitutes an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless it has been implemented by an act of the U.S. Congress or contains language expressing that it is "self-executing" upon ratification. The Court also ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding upon the U.S. and, like treaties, cannot be enforced by the president without authority from Congress or the U.S. Constitution.

<i>Leal Garcia v. Texas</i> 2011 United States Supreme Court case

Leal Garcia v. Texas, 564 U.S. 940 (2011), was a ruling in which the Supreme Court of the United States denied Humberto Leal García's application for stay of execution and application for writ of habeas corpus. Leal was subsequently executed by lethal injection. The central issue was not Leal's guilt, but rather that he was not notified of his right to call his consulate as required by international law. The Court did not stay the execution because Congress had never enacted legislation regarding this provision of international law. The ruling attracted a great deal of commentary and Leal's case was supported by attorneys specializing in international law and several former United States diplomats.

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), was a 2014 United States Supreme Court decision about patent eligibility of business method patents. The issue in the case was whether certain patent claims for a computer-implemented, electronic escrow service covered abstract ideas, which would make the claims ineligible for patent protection. The patents were held to be invalid, because the claims were drawn to an abstract idea, and implementing those claims on a computer was not enough to transform that abstract idea into patentable subject matter.

Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014), follows up on the Supreme Court's 2011 case of the same name in which it had reversed the Third Circuit and concluded that both individuals and states can bring a Tenth Amendment challenge to federal law. The case was remanded to the Third Circuit, for a decision on the merits, which again ruled against Bond. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded again, ruling that the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 did not reach Bond's actions and she could not be charged under that federal law.

Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the appeal of a district court's decision to return a child to his country of residence is not precluded by the child's departure from the United States. It arose from the divorce proceedings of Mr. and Ms. Chafin; she wanted their daughter to live with her in Scotland, while he wanted her to remain in the United States with him.

<i>Nottinghamshire County Council v B</i> 2011 Irish Supreme Court case

Nottinghamshire County Council v B[2011] IESC 48; [2013] 4 IR 662 was an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court refused to overturn an order of the High Court returning children of married parents from England to that jurisdiction, following a request by the English courts under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980.

Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. The Court held that civil service of a lawsuit against the government of Sudan was invalid because the civil complaints and summons had been sent to the Embassy of Sudan in Washington, D.C. rather than to the Sudanese Foreign Minister in Khartoum.

Peter v. NantKwest Inc., 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2019 term.

References

  1. 1 2 Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon,No. 16-254 , 581 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1504 (2017).
  2. ↑ Garden, Charlotte (2017-03-23). "Argument analysis: The court dives into Water Splash". SCOTUSblog.
  3. ↑ "Innovation in Splash Parks". www.watersplashnet.com. Retrieved 2017-04-05.
  4. 1 2 "Petition for a writ of certiorari filed" (PDF). SCOTUSblog.
  5. ↑ "Menon v. Water Splash, Inc. (Tex. Ct. App. 2015)" (PDF). Letters Blogatory.
  6. ↑ Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 137 S. Ct. at 1508-11.
  7. ↑ Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 137 S. Ct. at 1511-13.
  8. ↑ Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 137 S. Ct. at 1513.
  9. ↑ "Opinion on Remand". Texas 14th Court of Appeals.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.