Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01516/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01516-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Grain Board of Iraq
Defendant
Iraqi Ministry of Trade
Defendant
Republic of Iraq
Defendant
The Rice Company
Plaintiff
The Rice Corporation
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 Plaintiff does not reference the Republic of Iraq in its 1

request.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE RICE CORPORATION, d/b/a )

THE RICE COMPANY, a Delaware )

corporation, ) 

) 2:06-cv-1516-GEB-DAD

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER

)

GRAIN BOARD OF IRAQ, an Iraqi )

state company; IRAQI MINISTRY OF )

TRADE, an Iraqi state agency; )

REPUBLIC OF IRAQ; and DOES 1 )

through 50, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff requests authorization to substitute service of

process on Defendants Grain Board of Iraq (“GBI”) and Iraqi Ministry

of Trade (“MOT”) under Rule 4(j)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil 1

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01516-GEB -DAD Document 13 Filed 12/14/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff makes contradictory statements regarding which 2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is the basis for its request. It first

states the request is made under “Rules 4(h)(2) and 4(f)(3)[,]” but

later states that “28 U.S.C. § 1608(b) and [Rule] 4(j) set forth the

requirements for service of process on the Defendant [GBI] . . . .”

(Pl.’s Request at 1, 2.) Since Plaintiff’s argument follows the

analysis set forth in Rule 4(j)(1), it is presumed that Plaintiff’s

references to Rules 4(h)(2) and 4(f)(3) are erroneous.

2

Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1608(b) by mail to a post office box and by 2

email. 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff filed its Complaint on July 7, 2006; on July 10,

2006, an Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference issued,

which scheduled a Status Conference in this case for September 25,

2006. On September 15, 2006, the Status Conference was continued to

December 18, 2006, because “Plaintiff ha[d] not yet perfected service

of process”; Plaintiff was warned that “[i]f a defendant is not served

by November 6, 2006, said defendant could be dismissed from this

action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).” (Order Continuing

Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference, Sept. 15, 2006, at 1-2.) 

Further, the September 15 Order required Plaintiff to show cause

(“OSC”) no later than 4:00 p.m. on November 10, 2006, why any unserved

defendant should not be dismissed from this action because of

Plaintiff’s failure to perfect service “within the 120-day time period

prescribed by Rule 4(m).” (Id. at 2.) On November 10, 2006,

Plaintiff responded to the OSC and requested permission to substitute

service of process. 

In Plaintiff’s request for substituted service, Plaintiff

asserts that Rule 4(j)(1) and § 1608 apply because “Defendant [GBI] is

an agency or instrumentality of a Foreign State within the meaning of

the statute” and Plaintiff explains further that “[t]he [GBI] is a

Case 2:06-cv-01516-GEB -DAD Document 13 Filed 12/14/06 Page 2 of 3
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 These sections are excluded from Rule 4(m)’s 120-day service 3

requirement. See Rule 4(m).

3

high level government agency as is the [MOT].” (Pl.’s Request at 3- 3

4.) However, these conclusory assertions do not demonstrate that

either GBI or MOT is an agency or instrumentality within the meaning

of Rule 4(j)(1) and § 1608. 

Plaintiff is provided a further opportunity to demonstrate

these assertions in a filing due no later than 4:00 p.m. on

December 21, 2006. This filing is required to explain why GBI and MOT

each qualify as an agency or instrumentality within the meaning of

Rule 4(j)(1) and § 1608(b); whether an international convention on

service of judicial documents is applicable within the meaning of

§ 1608(b)(2); whether the requested means of substituted service are

consistent with the laws of Iraq within the meaning of

§ 1608(b)(3)(C); and whether Plaintiff is seeking to substitute

service on Defendant Republic of Iraq. Plaintiff shall also file a

proposed order at the same time.

The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is rescheduled

to commence at 9:00 a.m. on March 26, 2007. Plaintiff shall file a

status report no later than fourteen days prior to the status

conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2006

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01516-GEB -DAD Document 13 Filed 12/14/06 Page 3 of 3