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 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Richard Shupe, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Lewis & Lewis Insurance Agency 

Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-18-00159-TUC-DCB 

ORDER 

 On March 26, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendants Lewis and 

Lewis Insurance Agency (Lewis and Lewis), a California corporation, and Qualitas 

Compania de Seguros (Qualitas), a Mexico corporation. Plaintiffs served process on Lewis 

and Lewis. Plaintiffs have not served Qualitas. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.4(h), Rule 4(f) 

applies to serving Qualitas, a foreign corporation. Rule 4(f) provides for service “by any 

internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as 

those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and 

Extrajudicial Documents.” Mexico and the United States are signatories to the Hague 

Convention, therefore, service of process on Defendant Qualitas in Mexico must conform 

to the requirements of the Hague Convention. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. 

Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 705 (1988). “The primary means by which service is accomplished 

under the Convention is through a receiving country's ‘Central Authority.’” Brockmeyer v. 

May, 383 F.3d 798, 801 (9th Cir.2004). 
- 2 - 

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 

 Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Alternative Service on Qualitas because, after living in 

Mexico for a number of years, Plaintiffs are familiar with how process works in Mexico. 

According to the Plaintiffs, while it is technically possible to serve a party in Mexico, “what 

happens is that service is rarely affected because of the corruption of the Police department 

who ultimately are responsible to make the service of process.” (Motion (Doc. 32) at 2.) 

Unfortunately for Plaintiffs, this is the sole avenue available to serve Defendant Qualitas, 

a Mexican corporation. The Court shall grant an extension of time for Plaintiffs to affect 

service in conformance with the Hague Convention. When signing the Hague Convention, 

Mexico objected to the Plaintiffs’ alternative suggestion for service of process by certified 

mail. Therefore, as long as service under the Hague is possible, the alternative of serving 

process by certified mail is not an option under Rule 4(f)(3), as an “other means not 

prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.” 

The Court shall grant the Plaintiffs an extension of time to serve Defendant Qualitas, 

a Mexican corporation in Mexico, for as long as necessary upon proof that Plaintiffs have 

initiated the process and are in compliance with the Hague Convention for service of 

process and are complying with any directives from the Central Authority. 

The Plaintiffs also seek to amend the Complaint to add Defendant Qualitas 

Insurance Co., a California company. The Plaintiffs assert that they have properly served 

this California company but do not offer proof of service. 

The Plaintiffs have not complied with LRCiv 15.1(a), for amendment of pleadings 

by motion. The Court will consider the request to add Qualitas Insurance Co., if and when 

a motion for leave to amend the Complaint to add it is filed by Plaintiffs in compliance 

with Rule 15.1(a), including attaching “a copy of the proposed amended pleading as an 

exhibit to the motion, which must indicate in what respect it differs from the pleading which 

it amends, by bracketing or striking through the text to be deleted and underlining the text 

to be added.” 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Alternative Service of Process (Doc. 32) is
- 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 

DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 31) is 

GRANTED upon the filing by the Plaintiffs of proof that they have initiated service of 

process on Qualitas Compania de Seguros with the Central Authority in Mexico, pursuant 

to the Hague Convention. The extension shall depend on the Plaintiffs filing proof of 

commencement of service of process in Mexico within 14 days of the filing date of this 

Order. Failure by Plaintiffs to provide proof that they have initiated process of service in 

Mexico may result in this Court dismissing Defendant Qualitas from this action. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiffs pursue service of process in Mexico 

on Qualitas, the Plaintiffs shall file status reports with the Court upon receiving any 

communications from the Central Authority regarding service and shall attach any such 

communication to the status report. Even if there are no Central Authority communications, 

the Plaintiffs shall file a status report with this Court 90 days from the filing date of this 

Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiffs seek to add Qualitas Insurance 

Company, a San Diego, California, corporation, they shall do so by filing a Motion for 

Leave to Amend the Complaint and shall comply with LRCiv. 15.1(a). 

 Dated this 6th day of May, 2019.