Source: https://fsialaw.com/category/service-of-process/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:29:55+00:00

Document:
In Barot v. Embassy of Republic of Zambia, No. CV 13-0451 (ABJ), 2014 WL 2443868 (D.D.C. June 2, 2014) – a case that I have discussed before – the court reaffirmed that strict compliance under section 1608(a) requires careful adherence to all of the service requirements.
The plaintiff in Barot argued that sending service documents to the Zambia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs complied with section 1608(a)(3)’s requirement that the documents be sent to “the head of the ministry of foreign affairs of the foreign state concerned.” 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3). The court disagreed, finding the service defective because “[t]he plain language of the statute requires that the service package be addressed to the head of the ministry, or the minister of foreign affairs, not to the ministry in general.” Barot, 2014 WL 2443868, at *2. The district court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that “no other court has required ‘head of’ or the name of the minister before there is proper service under section 1608(a)(3),” holding that such a contention “ignores the plain language of that section and . . . overlooks the fact that this issue has not been presented to a court before.” Id. at *3.
Barot should serve as a reminder to plaintiffs that courts will not excuse even relatively minor defects in service on a foreign state under section 1608(a). To the extent that a plaintiff is uncertain about service requirements under section 1608(a), the plaintiff should seek legal counsel to help ensure that service is perfected.
Since the enactment of the FSIA, plaintiffs have repeatedly attempted to serve foreign states via their embassies in Washington, D.C. That is the wrong approach. The FSIA does not provide for service via an embassy (cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)), and indeed such service is inconsistent with international law. As demonstrated by a recent case from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, any attempt to serve via a foreign state’s embassy will be quashed by the court. See Rhuma v. Libya, 2:13-CV-2286 LKK AC, 2014 WL 1665042, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2014) (“personal service on a foreign state’s embassy fails to comply with Section 1608(a)”); see also, e.g., BPA Intern., Inc. v. Kingdom of Sweden, 281 F. Supp. 2d 73, 84 (D.D.C. 2003) (personal service on Embassy of Sweden was insufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)); Ibiza Business Ltd. v. U.S., 2010 WL 2788169, at *2 (D.D.C. 2010) (personal service on Brazilian Embassy was insufficient pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)).
Two recent decisions reaffirm the need for a plaintiff’s strict compliance with the service requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. section 1608(a). Although I have addressed the standard for service upon a foreign state before, the new decisions demonstrate the practical effect of a strict compliance standard in FSIA litigation.
First, in Barot v. Embassy of Republic of Zambia, CV 13-0451 (ABJ), 2014 WL 1400849 (D.D.C. Apr. 11, 2014), the district court held that the plaintiff failed to comply with section 1608(a)(3)’s requirement that service of process must “be addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs of the foreign state concerned.” 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3). Instead of addressing the package to the head of the foreign ministry, the plaintiff addressed the mailing to the “Embassy of Zambia, P.O. Box 50069, Lusaka City, Zambia.” Barot, 2014 WL 1400849, at *5. While the district court noted that it “would be inclined to overlook such a technical error” in another context, the court held that section 1608(a) requires strict compliance and that the service attempt “did not comply with the strict terms of section 1608(a)(3).” Id. at *5-6.
Second, in Doe v. Holy See, CIV.A. 13-128, 2014 WL 1329985 (E.D. La. Apr. 2, 2014) (a case in which I am one of the attorneys for the foreign sovereign), the district court held that service of the original complaint did not strictly comply with section 1608(a) when the complaint had been amended before service was accomplished. The court held that “the plaintiff’s attempted service of process failed to strictly comply with the FSIA’s service requirements in 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a) because the plaintiff failed to serve the operative amended complaint [and] did not serve a translation of the operative complaint.” Id. at *6.
The strict compliance standard requires plaintiffs to follow the rules set forth under section 1608(a) and the underlying federal regulations. When a plaintiff fails to do so, there is a good chance that the plaintiff will be compelled to return to square one.

References: v. 
 § 1608
 § 1608
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1608
 v. 
 § 1608
 v. 
 § 1608
 v. 
 § 1608