Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02349/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02349-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VENTURA FOODS LLC, a 

Delaware limited liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FOOD KING, S.A. de C.V., a 

Mexican corporation, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-2349-BAS(JMA) 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME AND 

ISSUANCE OF LETTER 

ROGATORY WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE 

[ECF No.7] 

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's ex parte application for: (1) an 

extension of time to serve the complaint to Defendant; (2) issuance of a Letter 

Rogatory in accordance with the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and 

Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters ("Hague Service 

Convention"); and (3) issuance of a Letter Rogatory in accordance with the InterAmerican Convention on Letters Rogatory. (ECF No.7.) 

For the following reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

Plaintiff's ex parte application in its entirety. 

-1- 15cv2349 

Case 3:15-cv-02349-BAS-JMA Document 8 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

I. EXTENSION OF TIME 

Plaintiff requests a 360-day extension of time to serve the complaint to 

Defendant in Mexico. (Pl.'s Ex Parte Appl. 6:11-14.) Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure Rule 4(m) governs the time limit for service. It states the following: 

If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the 

complaint is filed, the court-on motion or on its own after 

notice to the plaintiff-must dismiss the action without 

prejudice against that defendant or order that service be 

made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows 

good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time 

for service for an appropriate period. This subdivision (m) 

does not apply to service in a foreign country under Rule 

4(j), 4(h)(2), or 4(j)(1). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (emphasis added). 

Because Plaintiff is attempting to serve Defendant in Mexico under Rule 

4(h)(2), it is exempted from the 90-day time limit for service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4(m). "Courts have reasoned that the foreign country exception is a 'recogni[tion] 

that the timeliness of foreign service is often out of the plaintiffs control.'" Allstate 

Ins. Co. v. Funai Corp., 249 F.R.D. 157, 161 (M.D. Pa. 2008) (quoting Nylok Corp. 

v. Fastener World Inc., 396 F.3d 805, 807 (7th Cir. 2005». However, some courts 

have determined that the exemption from the 90-day time limit for service in a foreign 

country "does not apply if a plaintiff makes no effort to serve the foreign defendant 

abroad." Id. at 162 (citing USHA (India) Ltd. v. Honeywelllnt'IInc., 421 F.3d 129, 

134 (2d Cir.2005». 

Plaintiffs request for a 360-day extension oftime is moot because Rule 4(m) 

exempts Plaintiff from the 90-day time limit for service. However, the Rule 4(m) 

exemption for time limit for service does not give Plaintiff an infinite time to serve 

Defendant. See Allstate, 249 F.R.D. at 162 (finding that the exemption did not apply 

because plaintiff had "not made a reasonable, good faith effort to attempt service 

abroad during the [service] period"). Plaintiff must be able to demonstrate it made an 

effort to serve the Defendant in a timely manner in order to take advantage of the 

-2- 15cv2349 

Case 3:15-cv-02349-BAS-JMA Document 8 Filed 12/09/16 Page 2 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

exemption provided by Rule 4(m). See id At this time, the Court finds Plaintiff has 

made efforts to serve Defendant in a timely manner. 

However, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiffs request for an extension 

oftime beyond 90 days pursuant to Rule 4(m). 

II. LETTER ROGATORY FOR THE HAGUE SERVICE CONVENTION 

In addition to the extension oftime, Plaintiff requests the Court to issue a letter 

rogatory in accordance with the Hague Service Convention to aid in Plaintiffs 

service ofDefendant in Mexico. (Pl.'s Ex Parte App!. 8:16-20.) 

Both the United States and Mexico are signatories of the Convention on the 

Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial 

Matters, done at The Hague on November 15, 1965 ("Hague Service Convention"). 

The Hague Service Convention provides: 

The authority or judicial officer competent under the law 

ofthe State in which the documents originate shall forward 

to the Central Authority of the State addressed a request 

conforming to the model annexed to the present 

Convention, without any requirement of legalisation or 

other equivalent formality. 

Art. 3, Hague Service Convention, 20 U.S.T. 361,1969 WL 97765, at *1. The Hague 

Service Convention does not require a letter rogatory be issued by a court under the 

law ofthe State that is requesting service abroad. See id Rather, the treaty allows any 

attorney competent under the law of the requesting State to contact the Central 

Authority ofthe requested State to aid in serving an individual or corporation abroad. 

See id. The Hague Service Convention allows attorneys to serve judicial and 

extrajudicial documents abroad without the assistance of the court, and as a result, 

this Court finds it unnecessary, and possibly improper, to issue a letter rogatory for 

the Plaintiff to serve under the Hague Service Convention. 

II 

II 

-3- 15cv2349 

Case 3:15-cv-02349-BAS-JMA Document 8 Filed 12/09/16 Page 3 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

1 0 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs request to issue a letter rogatory 

in accordance with the Hague Service Convention because the treaty does not require 

a letter rogatory to serve the complaint in Mexico. 

III. LETTER ROGATORY FOR INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION 

Plaintiff also requests the Court to issue a letter rogatory in accordance with 

the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory. (Pl.'s Ex Parte Appl. 10:1-4.) 

However, the Hague Service Convention is the superior means for service abroad. 

The Hague Service Convention states that "[t]he present Convention shall 

apply in all cases, in civil or commercial matters, where there is occasion to transmit 

a judicial or extrajudicial document for service abroad." Art. 1, Hague Service 

Convention, 20 U.S.T. 361, 1969 WL 97765, at *1. The United States Supreme Court 

implied that this language determined that plaintiffs must apply the Hague Service 

Convention when applicable by distinguishing the use ofmandatory language in the 

Hague Service Convention with the use of discretionary language in the Hague 

Evidence-Taking Convention. See Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. US. 

Dist. Court for the S. Dist. ofIowa, 482 U.S. 522, 568 n.l5 (1987). 

Following Societe Nationale, the Hague Service Convention should apply to 

Plaintiffs complaint considering the mandatory language used in the Hague Service 

Convention. See Societe Nationale, 482 U.S. at 568 n.15. The treaty clearly states 

that all cases involving civil or commercial matters requiring service abroad shall 

apply the Hague Service Convention. See Art. 1, Hague Service Convention, 20 

U.S.T. 361, 1969 WL 97765, at *1. Therefore, following the text of the Hague 

Service Convention, Plaintiffs primary means of service in Mexico is under the 

Hague Service Convention and not the Inter-American Convention. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs ex parte application to issue a 

letter rogatory in accordance with the Inter-American Convention. 

/1 

-4- 15cv2349 

Case 3:15-cv-02349-BAS-JMA Document 8 Filed 12/09/16 Page 4 of 5
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IV. CONCLUSION & ORDER 

In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

Plaintiff's ex parte application in its entirety. (ECF No.7.) However, the Court is not 

unsympathetic to the demands being placed by Mexico before agreeing to serve a 

summons. Accordingly, the Court simultaneously with this order issues an order 

certifying with an original signature that the summons in this case is a valid one from 

this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 8, 2016 

United States District Judge 

-5- 15cv2349 

Case 3:15-cv-02349-BAS-JMA Document 8 Filed 12/09/16 Page 5 of 5