Summary
The Nevada Supreme Court considered whether service of process on a Nevada defendant in Spain complied with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents and Spanish civil procedure. The court held that the service by a private Spanish attorney was unauthorized under both the Convention and Spanish law, deprived the district court of jurisdiction, and granted a writ of prohibition.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether service of process on Dahya in Spain complied with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.
- If the service did not comply with the Hague Convention, whether it nevertheless complied with Spanish internal procedural law.
- Whether the Nevada Supreme Court should issue a writ of prohibition after the district court denied Dahya's motion to quash service.
Holdings
- Article 19 does not permit service abroad by any method that the receiving state has not expressly prohibited; an alternative method must be specifically permitted by the receiving state's internal law.
- The service was ineffective because Spanish law requires personal service to be performed by an authorized marshal or judicial officer, and the Spanish attorney who served Dahya lacked that authority.
- A writ of prohibition is an appropriate vehicle to challenge a district court's refusal to quash defective service, and the writ should issue because the defective service prevented the district court from acquiring jurisdiction over Dahya.
Key quotations
“Because both Spain and the United States are signatory states to the Hague Convention, the service on Dahya must have been "effected strictly according to the procedures set forth" under the Hague Convention's guidelines.” (242)
“Thus, a foreign state should be afforded the autonomy to select service methods commensurate with its own internal laws and the Hague Convention without having to object to all other methods not specifically proscribed.” (243)
“Any method of service not in accord with Spanish civil procedure—including unauthorized service—is deemed void.” (244)
Factual background
Dahya, a Canadian citizen residing in Spain, was sued in Nevada by Casmyn Corporation, a Colorado corporation formerly led by Dahya. A Spanish attorney personally served Dahya with the Nevada summons and complaint at his home in Tenerife. No Spanish court authorized the attorney to perform the service, and the parties submitted conflicting affidavits concerning whether Spanish law permitted such private service.
Procedural history
Casmyn Corporation filed a Nevada action against Dahya alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent use of corporate expense accounts. A Spanish attorney personally served Dahya at his residence in Tenerife, Spain, without authorization from a Spanish court. The Second Judicial District Court denied Dahya's motion to quash service, and Dahya sought extraordinary relief in the Nevada Supreme Court.
Remand instructions
The clerk was directed to issue a writ of prohibition restraining the district court from exercising jurisdiction over Dahya based on the defective service.