UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

PHILLIP NELSON BURNS, MIRJANA 

PAVKOVICH, Administrator of the Estate of

Rade Pavkovich, Deceased, and Warren 

Elmer Halpap, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 -againstGRUPO MÉXICO, S.A. de C.V., a Mexican 

Corporation, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 1:07-CV-3496(WHP) 

DECLARATION OF GERARDO MANUEL 

RAMÍREZ ORNELAS IN SUPPORT OF 

GRUPO MÉXICO, S.A. de C.V.'S MOTION TO 

REMAND OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO 

DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF 

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

I, Gerardo Manuel Ramírez Ornelas, declare as follows: 

1. I have been practicing law in Mexico for 26 years. I am a Mexican 

attorney and have expertise concerning Mexico’s adoption of the Hague Convention on the 

Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, Nov. 

15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, 1969 WL 97765 (1969)(the “Hague Convention”) and Mexico’s 

exceptions and reservations thereto. 

2. I have reviewed the papers submitted by Grupo México S.A. B. de C.V. 

(“Grupo México”) in Support of its Motion to Dismiss or, In the Alternative, to Remand 

(“Motion to Dismiss”) and I have also reviewed ASARCO LLC’s and Southern Peru Holdings’ 

Response in Opposition to Grupo México’s Motion to Remand or Dismiss. My understanding is 

that these papers have been submitted in connection with the above-captioned action Burns v. 

Grupo México S.A. de C.V., Index No.:04114728, originally filed in the Supreme Court of the 

State of New York, County of New York and now pending in the Southern District of New York 

(the “Action”). 

Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 42 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 4
 

-2-

3. Mexico became a signatory to the Hague Convention in 1999. 

4. Although the Hague Convention allows for service through a third party in 

certain limited circumstances, each participating nation has the option to object to effective 

service by a third party, requiring instead that service be effected through court officers. Mexico 

did object to such third party service and requires a specific court order allowing for proper 

service on a Mexican corporation by a third party, otherwise rendering third party service 

ineffective. 

5. Article 10 of the Hague Convention states that: 

Provided the State of destination does not object, the present Convention 

shall not interfere with – 

(a) the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, 

directly to persons abroad, 

(b) the freedom of judicial officers, officials, or other competent 

persons of the State of origin to effect service of judicial 

documents directly through the judicial officers, officials or other 

competent persons of the State of destination, 

(c) the freedom of any person interested in a judicial proceeding to 

effect service of judicial documents directly through the judicial 

officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of 

destination. 

Hague Convention, 20 U.S.T. 361, 1969 WL 97765 (1969), Article 10. 

6. Pursuant to Article 31 of the Netherland’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 

Mexico opposed certain aspects of Article 10 of the Hague Convention. Specifically, Mexico 

stated that, 

In relation to Article 10, the United Mexican States are opposed 

to the direct service of documents through diplomatic or consular 

agents to persons in Mexican territory according to the 

procedures described in [Article 10] subparagraphs a), b) and c), 

unless the Judicial Authority exceptionally grants the 

Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 42 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 2 of 4
 

-3-

simplification different from the national regulations and 

provided that such a procedure does not contravene public law or 

violate individual guarantees. The request must contain the 

description of formalities whose application is required to effect 

service of the document. (emphasis added).

7. Mexico’s opposition to Article 10 of the Hague Convention requires that 

any service of process upon a Mexican person or entity in Mexico pursuant to the Hague 

Convention shall be requested by an authority or competent judicial officer. Exceptionally, an 

interested person “unaffiliated”, can request the service of process, but in order to be legal, the 

Mexican courts shall grant such simplification issuing an award. 

8. The plaintiffs in the above-referenced action did not obtain a formal and 

required order from the Mexican courts for a simplified service of process on Grupo México, but 

instead the request was filed from a third party process server, unaffiliated with the Mexican 

Judicial Authority. See Affidavit of Jeff Karsten Regarding Service of Process in Mexico in 

accordance with the Hague Service Convention, dated July 5, 2007 and attached hereto as 

Exhibit A. Because the plaintiffs in this litigation did not obtain a simplified order from the 

Mexican courts to effect service of process on Grupo México, such service of process at the 

direction of third party Civil Action Group/APS International, Ltd. was not effective. 

9. In addition, Article 5(a) of the Hague Convention requires that the 

documents served on Grupo Mexico be translated by an authorized translator under the Mexican 

federal courts. Because the summons and complaint served on Grupo México was not translated 

by an authorized translator under the Mexican federal courts, service of the documents does not 

meet the requirements of Article 5(a) of the Hague Convention and article 553 of Civil 

Procedure Federal Code and service on Grupo México is thus not effective. 

Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 42 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 3 of 4
The foregoing is affirmed under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe United States of

America pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746.

Dated: luly 16, 2007

-4-

Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 42 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 4 of 4