Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00822/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00822-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Amports, Inc.
Defendant
Benicia Port Terminal Company
Counter Claimant
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Limited
Counter Defendant
Volkswagen Konzernlogistik GmbH & Co.
ThirdParty Defendant

Document Text:

STIPULATION AND ORDER APPOINTING INTERNATIONAL PROCESS SERVER AND CLARIFYING 

SCOPE OF INITIAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER

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

Anthony J. Barron, State Bar No. 150447

abarron@nixonpeabody.com

Taylor T. Steele, State Bar No. 304443

tsteele@nixonpeabody.com

NIXON PEABODY LLP

One Embarcadero Center, 32nd Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111

Tel: 415-984-8200

Fax: 415-984-8300

Attorneys for Defendant, Counterclaimant, and Third 

Party Plaintiff BENICIA PORT TERMINAL 

COMPANY and Defendant AMPORTS, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAWASAKI KISEN KAISHA LIMITED,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BENICIA PORT TERMINAL COMPANY and 

AMPORTS, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:19-CV-00822-TLN-KJN

The Honorable Troy L. Nunley

STIPULATION TO APPOINT

INTERNATIONAL PROCESS SERVER 

AND CLARIFY SCOPE OF INITIAL 

PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER; 

ORDER

BENICIA PORT TERMINAL COMPANY and 

AMPORTS, INC.,

Counter-claimant,

vs.

KAWASAKI KISEN KAISHA LIMITED,

Counter-defendant.

BENICIA PORT TERMINAL COMPANY,

Third Party Plaintiff,

vs.

VOLKSWAGEN KONZERNLOGISTIK GMBH 

& CO.,

Third Party Defendant.

Case 2:19-cv-00822-TLN-KJN Document 25 Filed 01/13/20 Page 1 of 6
- 2 -

STIPULATION AND ORDER APPOINTING INTERNATIONAL PROCESS SERVER

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

STIPULATION

Plaintiff KAWASAKI KISEN KAISHA LIMITED (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants 

BENICIA PORT TERMINAL COMPANY (“BPTC”) and AMPORTS, INC. (collectively, the 

“Parties”) hereby stipulate to the following:

1. WHEREAS, BPTC has filed a Third Party Complaint [Dkt. 11] in this matter for 

breach of contract and declaratory relief against Third Party Defendant Volkswagen 

Konzernlogistik GmbH & Co. (“VWKL”);

2. WHEREAS, VWKL is headquartered in Germany, and as far as Defendants have 

been able to discern through their investigations to date, appears to lack any physical presence or 

operations in the United States;

3. WHEREAS, BPTC advises that it has diligently and exhaustively researched 

potential service methods, including alternative methods of service and those potentially available 

under federal shipping regulations due to VWKL’s status as a Vessel Operating Common Carrier, 

but BPTC now believes that VWKL is not amenable to service of process in the United States;

4. WHEREAS, BPTC has concluded that VWKL is likely only amenable to service 

of process under the authority of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and 

Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters developed at the Tenth Session of the 

Hague Conference on Private International Law on November 15, 1965 (the “Hague 

Convention”);

5. WHEREAS, as required by the Hague Convention, BPTC has, at considerable

expense, obtained a German-language translation of the process to be served on VWKL, 

including the Third Party Complaint and accompanying exhibit [Dkt. 11], the Summons to 

VWKL [Dkt. 13], and the Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order [Dkt. 4];

6. WHEREAS, BPTC has retained the services of Celeste Ingalls of Alan H. Crowe 

& Associates, Inc., d/b/a Crowe Foreign Services (“Crowe Foreign Services”), a firm experienced 

in effecting service of process under the Hague Convention in connection with federal litigation 

in the United States;

Case 2:19-cv-00822-TLN-KJN Document 25 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 6
- 3 -

STIPULATION AND ORDER APPOINTING INTERNATIONAL PROCESS SERVER

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

7. WHEREAS, BPTC understands that two orders will facilitate service under the 

Hague Convention: (1) an order appointing Crowe Foreign Services as International Process 

Server, which will authorize Crowe Foreign Services to work with the German central authority 

for the purposes of effectuating service upon VWKL pursuant the Hague Convention, and (b) an 

order clarifying that the 90-day service of process requirement under the Court’s Initial Pretrial 

Scheduling Order [Dkt. No. 4], which provides that “Plaintiff(s) shall complete service of process 

on all parties within ninety (90) days of the filing of the complaint,” does not apply to service 

upon VWKL under the Hague Convention;

8. WHEREAS, BPTC represents that an order appointing an international process 

server is appropriate because the Hague Convention provides that the “authority or judicial officer

competent under the law of the 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 legalization or other equivalent formality. The document 

to be served or a copy thereof shall be annexed to the request. The request and the document shall 

both be furnished in duplicate.” Hague Service Convention, art. 3, ch.1, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 

361 (emphasis added). A party may seek a court order appointing an international process server 

in order to serve a party in a foreign country. E.g., Wright v. Old Gringo Inc., No. 17-CV-1996-

BAS-MSB, 2019 WL 3804020 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2018) (appoint Crowe Foreign Services); 

Kourepis v. Sony Europe Ltd, No. 16-CV-04438-MEJ, 2016 WL 7116936 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 

2016) (same).

9. WHEREAS, BPTC represents that an order clarifying that the Court’s Initial 

Pretrial Scheduling Order does not apply to service under the Hague Convention or upon VWKL 

in this matter because Crowe Foreign Services, who has decades of experience serving process 

under the Hague Convention, advises that the German central authority could reject the service 

attempts if there is any question that the Court’s Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order renders service 

attempts under the Hague Convention untimely and ineffective, and because the Parties agree that 

the 90-day limit of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) does not apply to “service in a foreign 

country” as here, where the service is made “under Rule...4(h)(2)....”

Case 2:19-cv-00822-TLN-KJN Document 25 Filed 01/13/20 Page 3 of 6
- 4 -

STIPULATION AND ORDER APPOINTING INTERNATIONAL PROCESS SERVER

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

10. WHEREAS, "K" Line does not object to the relief sought hereunder and stipulates 

that the proposed order may issue.

THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate, subject to the Court’s approval, that the 

following Orders are appropriate to enable BPTC to effect service of process on VWKL under the 

Hague Convention:

1. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial 

and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters developed at the Tenth 

Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law on November 15, 1965 

(the “Hague Convention”), and for good cause shown, the Court should appoint 

Crowe Foreign Services, 1020 SW Taylor Street, Suite 240, Portland, Oregon, 97205, 

and its agents, including Celeste Ingalls, as the authority and judicial officer 

competent under the jurisdiction of this Court to forward to the Central Authority in 

the applicable country any and all documents to be served in this case.

2. The Court clarifies its Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order of May 9, 2019 [Dkt. 4] as 

follows: The provision in the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order ordering that 

“Plaintiff(s) shall complete service of process on all parties within ninety (90) days of 

the filing of the complaint,” does not apply to service upon VWKL under the Hague 

Convention because such service will occur in a foreign country. BPTC may properly 

serve VWKL after the expiration of the 90-day period from the filing of the complaint.

Dated: December 13, 2019 NIXON PEABODY LLP

By: /s/ Anthony J. Barron

Anthony J. Barron

Attorneys for Defendant, Counterclaimant, and 

Third Party Plaintiff BENICIA PORT 

TERMINAL COMPANY and Defendant 

AMPORTS, INC.

Case 2:19-cv-00822-TLN-KJN Document 25 Filed 01/13/20 Page 4 of 6
- 5 -

STIPULATION AND ORDER APPOINTING INTERNATIONAL PROCESS SERVER

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

Dated: December 13, 2019 CLYDE & CO US LLP

By: /s/ Conte C. Cicala

Conte C. Cicala

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant

KAWASAKI KISEN KAISHA LIMITED

Case 2:19-cv-00822-TLN-KJN Document 25 Filed 01/13/20 Page 5 of 6
- 6 -

STIPULATION AND ORDER APPOINTING INTERNATIONAL PROCESS SERVER

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

ORDER

Having considered the Parties’ stipulation, and for good cause shown, the Court orders as 

follows:

1. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial 

and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters developed at the Tenth 

Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law on November 15, 1965 

(the “Hague Convention”), and for good cause shown, the Court hereby appoints 

Crowe Foreign Services, 1020 SW Taylor Street, Suite 240, Portland, Oregon, 97205, 

and its agents, including Celeste Ingalls, as the authority and judicial officer 

competent under the jurisdiction of this Court to forward to the Central Authority in 

the applicable country any and all documents to be served in this case.

2. The Court clarifies its Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order of May 9, 2019 (ECF No. 4),

as follows: The provision in the Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order ordering that 

“Plaintiff(s) shall complete service of process on all parties within ninety (90) days of 

the filing of the complaint,” does not apply to service upon VWKL under the Hague 

Convention because such service will occur in a foreign country. (See Fed. R. Civ. 

Proc. 4(m) (time limit for service “does not apply to service in a foreign country”).) 

BPTC may properly serve VWKL after the expiration of the 90-day period from the 

filing of the complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-00822-TLN-KJN Document 25 Filed 01/13/20 Page 6 of 6