Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-254_5iel.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

2 

WATER SPLASH, INC. v. MENON 

Opinion of the Court 

Water  Splash.    472  S. W. 3d  28,  30  (Tex.  App.  2015). 
Water  Splash  asserted  several  causes  of  action,  including
unfair  competition,  conversion,  and  tortious  interference
with  business  relations.    Because  Menon  resided  in  Can­
ada, Water Splash sought and obtained permission to effect 
service by mail.  Ibid.  After Menon declined to answer or 
otherwise  enter  an  appearance,  the  trial  court  issued  a
default judgment in favor of Water Splash.  Menon moved 
to set aside the judgment on the ground that she had not 
been  properly  served,  but  the  trial  court  denied  the  mo­
tion.  Ibid. 

Menon  appealed,  arguing  that  service  by  mail  does  not 
“comport  with  the  requirements  of  the  Hague  Service 
Convention.”  Ibid.  The  Texas  Court  of  Appeals  majority
sided with Menon and held that the Convention prohibits 
service of process by mail.  Id., at 32.  Justice Christopher
dissented.  Id.,  at  34.  The  Court  of  Appeals  declined  to
review  the  matter  en  banc,  App.  95–96,  and  the  Texas
Supreme Court denied discretionary review, id., at 97–98. 
The  disagreement  between  the  panel  majority  and 
Justice Christopher tracks a broader conflict among courts
as  to  whether  the  Convention  permits  service  through
postal channels.  Compare, e.g., Bankston v. Toyota Motor 
Corp.,  889  F. 2d  172,  173–174  (CA8  1989)  (holding  that 
the  Convention  prohibits  service  by  mail),  and  Nuovo 
Pignone,  SpA  v.  Storman  Asia  M/V,  310  F. 3d  374,  385 
(CA5  2002)  (same),  with,  e.g.,  Brockmeyer  v.  May,  383 
F. 3d  798,  802  (CA9  2004)  (holding  that  the  Convention 
allows  service  by  mail),  and  Ackermann  v.  Levine,  788 
F. 2d 830, 838–840 (CA2 1986) (same).  We granted certio­
rari to resolve that conflict.  580 U. S. ___ (2016). 

B 
The “primary innovation” of the Hague Service Conven­
tion—set  out  in  Articles  2–7—is  that  it  “requires  each
state  to  establish  a  central  authority  to  receive  requests