Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-254_5iel.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2016 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

WATER SPLASH, INC. v. MENON 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS,
 
FOURTEENTH DISTRICT
 

No. 16–254.  Argued March 22, 2017—Decided May 22, 2017 

Petitioner Water Splash sued respondent Menon, a former employee, in
a Texas  state  court, alleging that  she had  begun working for a com-
petitor while still employed by Water Splash.  Because Menon resid-
ed in Canada, Water Splash obtained permission to effect service by
mail.  After Menon declined to answer or otherwise enter an appear-
ance,  the  trial  court  issued  a  default  judgment  for  Water  Splash.
That  court  subsequently  denied  Menon’s  motion  to  set  aside  the 
judgment on the ground that she had not  been properly served.  On 
appeal, Menon argued that service by mail does not comport with the 
requirements of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and
Extrajudicial  Documents  in  Civil  and  Commercial  Matters  (Hague 
Service  Convention),  which  seeks  to  simplify,  standardize,  and  gen-
erally  improve  the  process  of  serving  documents  abroad,  specifying
certain  approved  methods  of  service  and  preempting  “inconsistent 
methods  of  service”  wherever  it  applies,  Volkswagenwerk  Aktieng-
esellschaft  v.  Schlunk,  486  U. S.  694,  699.    The  Texas  Court  of  Ap-
peals  agreed  with  Menon,  holding  that  the  Convention  prohibited
service of process by mail.  Article 10, the provision at issue, consists
of  Articles  10(b)  and  10(c),  which  plainly  address  permissible  meth-
ods  of  “service,”  and  Article  10(a),  which  provides  that  the  Conven-
tion will not interfere with “the freedom  to send judicial documents, 
by postal channels, directly to persons abroad,” but does not express-
ly refer to “service.”  

Held: The  Hague  Service  Convention  does  not  prohibit  service  of  pro-

cess by mail.  Pp. 4–12.

(a) This Court begins its analysis by looking to the treaty’s text and 
the  context  in  which  its  words  are  used.  See  Schlunk, 486  U. S.,  at 
699.  The  key  word  in  Article  10(a)—“send”—is  a  broad  term,  and