Summary
The Supreme Court of Nevada denied a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging an order requiring service on defendants residing in China under the Hague Service Convention. The court held that, because NRCP 4(e)(1)(iii) requires mailing the summons and complaint to a known foreign address before service by publication is complete, the documents must be transmitted abroad and the Hague Convention applies. The court did not decide whether publication would be permissible when the foreign defendant's address is unknown.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a defendant residing outside the United States whose address is known may be served by publication under NRCP 4(e)(1)(i) and (iii) without complying with the Hague Convention.
- Whether the Nevada Supreme Court should exercise its original jurisdiction to review the district court's service-of-process order through a writ of mandamus or prohibition.
Holdings
- When a defendant resides outside the United States and the defendant's address is known, NRCP 4(e)(1)(iii) requires mailing the summons and complaint to that address before service is complete. That mailing is transmission of judicial documents abroad, so service must comply with the Hague Convention.
- The court could exercise its discretion to entertain the writ petition because the case presented an important issue of law requiring clarification and an appeal would not provide a speedy and adequate remedy at the early stage of the proceedings.
Key quotations
“Service is not complete based on the publication alone.” (7)
“Thus, if a defendant whose address is known resides outside of the United States, the summons and complaint must be transmitted abroad in order for service to be effective, triggering the requirement that the party serving process comply with the provisions of the Hague Convention.” (8)
“Accordingly, we deny the writ petition.” (9)
Factual background
Loeb brought a derivative action on behalf of Universal Travel Group against company officers and directors who resided in China. After unsuccessful efforts to locate them in Nevada, Loeb obtained their Chinese addresses and sought permission to serve them by publication under NRCP 4(e)(1). The district court denied the motion because the known-address mailing required by NRCP 4(e)(1)(iii) would constitute transmission of judicial documents abroad and therefore implicate the Hague Convention.
Procedural history
Loeb filed a shareholder derivative action against officers and directors of Universal Travel Group who resided in China. He moved under NRCP 4(e)(1) to serve them by publication, but after their Chinese addresses became known, the district court denied the motion and ordered service in compliance with the Hague Convention. Loeb sought extraordinary relief in the Nevada Supreme Court, which exercised its discretion to entertain the petition and denied it.