“A summons is the process by which a court acquires personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a civil action.” (Mannesmann DeMag, Ltd. v. Super. Ct. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1118, 1122.) A summons may be served on a person outside the United States. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 413.10(c).)

Legal Standard

Section 413.10(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure governs service of summons outside the United States. It states that a summons shall be served on a person “[o]utside the United States, as provided in this chapter or as directed by the court in which the action is pending, or, if the court before or after service finds that the service is reasonably calculated to give actual notice, as prescribed by the law of the place where the person is served or as directed by the foreign authority in response to a letter rogatory.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 413.10(c).)

Hague Convention

Because all manners of service on an individual (other than publication) in California require transmission of documents abroad, service must comply with the Hague Service Convention. (Kott v. Super. Ct. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1136.) “[I]n cases governed by the Hague Convention, service by mail is permissible so long as the receiving state has not objected to service by mail and service by mail is authorized under otherwise applicable law.” (Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1504, 1513; see also Inversiones Papaluchi S.A.S. v. Super. Ct. (Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc.) (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1064-1067.)

International treaties such as the Hague Convention may limit the manner of service on persons located in signatory countries; California courts may not exercise jurisdiction in violation of an international treaty. (Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk (1988) 486 U.S. 694, 699; Kott v. Super. Ct. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1136; Floveyor Int’l, Ltd. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789, 795.)

The Hague Convention is “mandatory” and applies to “all cases, in civil or commercial matters, where there is occasion to transmit a judicial or extrajudicial document for service abroad.” (Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou Sinotype Technology Co., Ltd. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 115, 131; Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk (1988) 486 U.S. 694, 699.) Failure to comply with the Hague Convention renders service on foreign defendant void. (Floveyor Internat., Ltd. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 789.)

“Article 1 of the Hague Service Convention states that the Convention does not apply if the address of the person to be served is not known. However, this provision has been construed to mean the Hague Service Convention does not apply when defendant's whereabouts cannot be ascertained despite reasonable diligence.” (Kott v. Super. Ct. (Beachport Entertainment Corp.) (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1126, 1139.)

The Adequacy of Service

“Constitutional due process requirements are satisfied where the form of service provided and employed is reasonably calculated to give a litigant actual notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard.” (Crescendo Corp. v. Shelted, Inc. (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 209, 213.)

When a defendant challenges the court’s personal jurisdiction on the ground of improper service of process, the plaintiff has the burden to prove the existence of jurisdiction by proving the facts requisite to an effective service. (Summers v. McClanahan (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 403, 413.)

American courts have held that formal objections to service by mail made by countries party to a multilateral treaty or convention on service of process at the time of accession or subsequently in accordance with the treaty are honored as a treaty obligation, and litigants should refrain from using such a method of service. (DeJames v. Magnificence Carriers, Inc., 654 F.2d 280 (3d Cir. 1981); Porsche v. Super. Ct., [123 Cal. App. 3d 755,] 177 Cal. Rptr. 155 (1981).)