Preview
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Michael E. Liftik (CA Bar No. 232430)
2 Sarah Heaton Concannon (pro hac vice)
1300 I Street, Suite 900
3 Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 538-8000
4 michaelliftik@quinnemanuel.com
sarahconcannon@quinnemanuel.com
5
6 Emily C. Kapur (CA Bar No. 306724)
555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th Fl.
7 Redwood Shores, California 94065
Telephone: (650) 801-5000
8 emilykapur@quinnemanuel.com
9 Attorneys for Specially Appearing Defendant Dominic Williams and Defendants Dfinity USA
Research, LLC and Dfinity Stiftung
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
13 DANIEL OCAMPO, Individually and on Case No. 21-CIV-03843
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
14 AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON
Plaintiff, NTAH
15
v. Hon. Susan L. Greenberg
16 Dept. 22 – Ctrm. I
DFINITY USA RESEARCH LLC, DFINITY Date Action Filed: July 15, 2021
17 STIFTUNG, AH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, Date: August 23, 2023
L.L.C., POLYCHAIN CAPITAL, DOMINIC Time: 9:00 a.m. PST
18 WILLIAMS, and JOHN DOES 1-20,
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 21-CIV-03843
AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH
1 AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH
2 Mr. Simon Ntah, Partner at Baker McKenzie Switzerland, Geneva, located at Esplanade Pont-
3 Rouge 2, 1212 Grand-Lancy/Geneva (“Baker McKenzie”) affirms as follows:
4 I. Background and Qualifications
5 1. I am a partner at Baker McKenzie in Geneva, Switzerland, in the Dispute Resolution
6 Practice Group, since 2020. Prior to joining Baker McKenzie, I practiced as a
7 litigation attorney in Switzerland for over 15 years, including for 10 years as a partner
8 in a prominent litigation boutique in Geneva.
9 2. I obtained my law degree from the University of Geneva in 2003, and subsequently
10 gained admission to the bar of the Canton of Geneva in 2005.
11 3. I hold an LL.M. from the University of San Diego (2007), as well as an executive
12 MBA from the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) (2023).
13 II. Scope of Question Presented
14 4. I have been engaged to address a question related to service of judicial documents as
15 a matter of Swiss domestic law.
16 5. In particular, my engagement concerns the issue of an attempted service on Mr.
17 Dominic Williams. I have been asked to opine on the following questions: “Was
18 Plaintiff’s attempted service on Mr. Dominic Williams proper under Swiss law?”. I
19 am not opining on the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service
20 Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.
21 6. My analysis of this issue is based on my review of the document entitled “Proof of
22 service of summons and complaint on defendant Dominic Williams”.1
23
24
25
26
1
27 Ex. 1 (Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint on Defendant Dominic Williams,
dated 3 August, 2022).
28
2 Case No. 21-CIV-03843
AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH
1 III. Issues of Swiss Law
2 A. Service per art. 138 CPC
3 7. Art. 138 of the Swiss Civil Procedural Code (“CPC”) governs the issue of the form of
4 service (in French: “Notification judiciaire”, “Forme”).
5 8. Art. 138 CPC defines the formalities for service of documents and under which
6 conditions they are served or are deemed to be served. If the form of service is
7 complied with, the addressee cannot object that they did not receive the document.
8 This provision thus ensures that the proceedings are conducted in compliance with
9 constitutional guarantees, and in particular the right of the parties to be heard.2
10 9. Art. 138 CPC states as follows:
11 “1 The summons, rulings and decisions are served by registered mail or by other
12 means against confirmation of receipt.
13
2 Service is accomplished when the document has been received by the
14
addressee or one of his or her employees or a person of at least 16 years of age
15
living in the same household, unless the court instructs that a document must be
16
17 served personally on the addressee.
18 3 Service is also deemed to have been effected:
19
20
J. Gschwend, Basler Kommentar Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO), Art. 138, p.
2
21 2-3 (para. 1) (“Gschwend”) (“Art. 138 regulates - as already partially for the proceedings in
front of the Federal Supreme Court (BSK BGG-Amstutz/ Arnold, Art. 44 N 22)- in accordance
22
with the previous case law of the Federal Supreme Court the formalities of service of the
23 documents to be delivered according to art. 136 CPC and determines in particular for the
summonses, orders and decisions to be served (para. 1) under which conditions they are served
24 (para. 2) or are deemed to be served in the sense of a fictitious service (para. 3). If the form of
service is complied with, the addressee can no longer object that he has not received the
25
document (Report on the VE-CPC, 69 on Art. 128). This provision thus ensures that the
26 proceedings can be conducted in compliance with the constitutional guarantees, in particular the
right of the parties to be heard, and can also be duly terminated by the proper service of the
27 final decision. By the fiction of service it prevents that the execution of the proceedings can be
hindered or even made impossible by impossible or thwarted service.”).
28
3 Case No. 21-CIV-03843
AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH
1 a. in the case of a registered letter that has not been collected: on the seventh
2 day after the failed attempt to serve it provided the person had to expect such
3 service;
4 b. in the case of personal service if the addressee refuses to accept service and
5 if such refusal is recorded by the bearer: on the day of refusal.
6 4 Other documents may be served by regular mail.”3
7 B. Service of summons, rulings and decisions per Art. 138 (2) CPC
8 10. Art. 138 CPC distinguishes between summonses, orders and decisions (para. 1), and
9 other documents (para. 4). Paragraph 2, in particular, codifies the established case law
10 on service of summonses, orders and decisions: the document is deemed to have been
11 served when it has either been delivered to the addressee, or to one of their employees
12 or to a person at least 16 years of age living in the same household.4
13 11. What should be deemed as an “employee” is not defined by this provision of the
14 CPC. In addition, neither case law nor scholarly writings discuss this point in detail.
15 12. In the absence of a clear indication in the law, case law, or scholarly writing, the
16 dispatch (in French “Message”), prepared by the Swiss Federal Council, which aims
17 to explain in detail to the Swiss Federal Assembly the purpose of the bill, may
18 provide guidance as to the intent guiding the adoption of a provision. In the present
19 case, with respect to “Art. 134 to 139 Judicial notification”, the dispatch states as
20 follows (emphasis added):5
21
22
23 3
Ex. 2 (Art. 138 CPC).
24 4 Art. 138 (2) CPC states as follows (emphasis added): “Service is accomplished when the
document has been received by the addressee or one of his or her employees or a person of at
25
least 16 years of age living in the same household, unless the court instructs that a document
26 must be served personally on the addressee.”
5
Ex. 3 (Dispatch of the CPC, dated 28 June 2006).
27
28
4 Case No. 21-CIV-03843
AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH
1 “ […] Art. 136 [currently Art. 138] regulates the form of the notification
2 (paragraphs 1 and 2). The document must be delivered directly to the
3 addressee against an acknowledgement of receipt or to a person close to them
4 (e.g. their spouse, a domestic employee or a child of 16 years of age or older).
5 This regulation is consistent with current case law. […].”
6 13. Therefore, based on the dispatch, a strict approach was envisioned when adopting
7 Art. 138 (2) CPC. The intent was that service be deemed valid only where
8 summonses, orders and decisions were delivered to the addressee directly, or to their
9 domestic employee or to a member of the household over the age of 16.
10 14. Although no case law could be found in this respect, I have considered whether
11 service could be valid where a non-domestic employee of the addressee, such as their
12 personal secretary, receives the documents.6 In my opinion, even assuming that such
13 a broader approach was admitted (which has never been confirmed), there should be
14 limits in order to comply with the ratio legis of Art. 138 (2) CPC, which aims, first
15 and foremost, at ensuring effective delivery of the document to the addressee.
16 Therefore, in my view, not any employee should be allowed to receive documents for
17 the purpose of Art. 138 (2) CPC. Indeed, case law confirms that even in cases where
18 corporate entities are to be served, it is not the case that simply any employee can
19 receive documents: “in addition to the bodies authorized to represent them,
20
21 6 See for instance N. J. Frei, Berner Kommentar Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung
22 (2012), Art. 138 ZPO, p. 4 (para. 12) (“If the postal employee does not meet the person
concerned at the address for service, service on an employee or another person living in the
23 same household is possible if this person is at least sixteen years old (e.g. to a spouse, a child or
the secretary, Report of VE-CPC, p. 69).This rule corresponds in principle to previous practice
24 (Dispatch of the CPC, p. 7307),even though service on an employee who does not live in the
25 same household was not considered admissible. However, the wording of the Swiss CPC makes
it clear that service may be made either on a sixteen-year-old employee or on a sixteen-year-old
26 person living in the same household. The person does not need to be expressly or tacitly
authorized to receive court documents (BSK BGG-Amstutz/ Arnold, Art.44 N 29). On the other
27 hand, service may only be effected at the addressee’s place of residence, e.g. not at the place of
residence of the employee or at the place of work of the person living in the same household as
28 the addressee (DIKE-Huber, art. 138 CPC N 41).”
5 Case No. 21-CIV-03843
AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH
1 employees of the lodge service or the secretariat in particular”7 are entitled to
2 receive documents per 138 (2) CPC, as opposed to, for instance, the gardener of the
3 company. I do not see why, where individuals, in their personal capacity, are to be
4 served, the approach should be stricter. In other words, in my view, only those
5 employees that are the closest to the addressee can comply with the requirements of
6 Art. 138 (2) CPC. This could for instance be the addressee’s personal assistant.
7 C. Improper service
8 15. In the present case, based on the document I reviewed, I am of the view that Mr.
9 Dominic Williams was not properly served as a matter of Swiss procedural law.
10 Indeed, I understand that the document to be served was delivered to Ms. Halanouva
11 Adela, i.e., an “office & event manager” of DFINITY Foundation. To my
12 understanding, Ms. Adela is not part of Mr. Dominic Williams’ household. Neither is
13 she employed by Mr. Dominic Williams as a domestic employee or in any other non-
14 domestic capacity that would make her a person “close to him.” In fact, she is not
15 employed by Mr. Dominic Williams at all, since she is employed by DFINITY
16 Foundation. Therefore, delivering the document to Ms. Adela did not comport with
17 the requirements of Art. 138 (2) CPC, and service of the document at hand was
18 invalid.
19 16. In the present case, service was invalid as a matter of Swiss procedural law.
20 7 See for instance Gschwend, p. 5 (para. 12) (“In addition to the addressee, employees or
21 persons living in the same household who are at least 16 years old are entitled to accept a
judicial action (para. 2). The provision in para. 2.5.5 of Swiss Post’s General Terms and
22 Conditions, according to which all persons to be found in the same residence or business
domicile are entitled to accept judicial actions (GTC “Postal services” for private customers;
23 ‘https://www.post.ch/de/pages/footer/allgemeine-geschaeftsbedingungen-agb? [as of 17 October
2016]), is probably not applicable in view of the clear wording (Huber, in: Brunner/ Gasser/
24 Schwander, art. 138 N 38 CPC). If the addressee is in a public institution (home, hospital,
25 prison, etc.), the owner or manager of the institution or his authorized representative is entitled
to receive the consignment (BGE 117 III 5 E. 1 = Pra 1992 no. 166). In the case of BGE 117 III
26 5, legal persons, in addition to the organs authorized to represent them, employees of the lodge
service or the secretariat in particular are also entitled to receive (Gasser/ Rickli, art. 138 CPC N
27 4; Huber in: Brunner/ Gasser/ Schwander, art. 138 CPC N 35). A service on a person who is not
entitled to receive pursuant to art. 138 para. 2 CPC is invalid and must be repeated (BK CPC-
28 Frei, art. 138 N 35).”
6 Case No. 21-CIV-03843
AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH
1 I affirm this 26th day of April, 2023, under the penalties of perjury under the
2 laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that I am physically located
3 outside the geographic boundaries of the United States, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin
4 Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;
5 that the foregoing is true; and I understand that this document may be filed in an action or
6 proceeding in a court of law.
7 Executed at Esplanade Pont-Rouge 2, 1212 Grand-Laney/Geneva
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7 Case No. 21-CIV-03843
AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH
EXHIBIT
1 John T. Jasnoch (CA 281605)
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
2 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
3 Telephone: 619-233-4565
Facsimile: 619-233-0508
4 jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
5 Counsel for Plaintiff Daniel Ocampo
6 [Additional Counsel on Signature Page.]
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10 DANIEL OCAMPO, Individually and on Behalf Case No. 21-CIV-03843
of All Others Similarly Situated,
11 CLASS ACTION
Plaintiff,
12 v. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND
COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT DOMINIC
13 DFINITY USA RESEARCH LLC, DFINITY
STIFTUNG, POLYCHAIN CAPITAL, DOMINIC WILLIAMS
14 WILLIAMS, AH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT,
L.L.C., and JOHN DOES 1-20,
15 Hon. Danny Y. Chou
Defendants. Dept. 22 – Ctrm. I
16
Date Action Filed: July 15, 2021
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT DOMINIC WILLIAMS
1 I, John T. Jasnoch, am employed in the County of San Diego, State of California. I am over the
2 age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP,
3 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300, San Diego, CA 92101. My electronic service address is jjasnoch@scott-
4 scott.com.
5 On August 3, 2022, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, on the interested
6 parties in this action, as follows:
7 X By Electronic Filing
8 I caused said document(s) to be filed electronically using One Legal, an electronic filing
9 service provider of the Superior Court of San Mateo County; and
10 X By Electronic Mail
11 I caused said document(s) to be transmitted by electronic mail. The name(s) and email
12 address(es) of the person(s) served are set forth in the attached Service List. The document
13 was transmitted by electronic transmission and without error.
14
15 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
16 and correct.
17 Executed on this 3rd day of August, 2022, at San Diego, California.
18
19
20 JOHN T. JASNOCH
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT DOMINIC WILLIAMS
1 SERVICE LIST
Daniel Ocampo v. Dfinity USA Research LLC, et al., Case No. 21-CIV-03843
2
3 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS:
4 NAME FIRM EMAIL
John T. Jasnoch SCOTT + SCOTT jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
5 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
6 San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619-233-4565
7 619-233-0508 (fax)
8 Counsel for Plaintiff Daniel
Ocampo
9 Sean T. Masson SCOTT + SCOTT smasson@scott-scott.com
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
10 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
11 Telephone: 212-223-6444
212-223-6334 (fax)
12
Counsel for Plaintiff Daniel
13 Ocampo
14
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:
15
16 NAME FIRM EMAIL
Alexander Mills CRAVATH, SWAINE amills@cravath.com
17 Kevin J. Orsini & MOORE LLP korsini@cravath.com
Antony L. Ryan Worldwide Plaza aryan@cravath.com
18 825 Eighth Avenue
Lauren M. Rosenberg New York, NY 10019- lrosenberg@cravath.com
19 7475
Telephone: 212-474-
20 1000
212-474-3700 (fax)
21
Counsel for Dfinity USA
22 Research LLC
Michael Liftik QUINN EMANUEL michaelliftik@quinnemanuel.com
23 Sarah Heaton URQUHART & sarahconcannon@quinnemanuel.com
Concannon SULLIVAN, LLP
24 1300 I Street, Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
25 Telephone: 202-538-
8000
26
Counsel for Dfinity USA
27 Research LLC
28
2
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT DOMINIC WILLIAMS
1 Emily Kapur QUINN EMANUEL emilykapur@quinnemanuel.com
URQUHART &
2 SULLIVAN, LLP
555 Twin Dolphin
3 Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA
4 94065
Telephone: 650-801-
5 5000
6 Counsel for Dfinity USA
Research LLC
7 Brenna Nelinson QUINN EMANUEL brennanelinson@quinnemanuel.com
URQUHART &
8 SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue,
9 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
10 Telephone: 212-849-
7000
11
Counsel for Dfinity USA
12 Research LLC
Peter R. Boutin KEESAL, YOUNG & peter.boutin@kyl.com
13 Christopher A. LOGAN christopher.stecher@kyl.com
Stecher 450 Pacific Avenue
14
San Francisco, CA
15 94133
Telephone: 415-398-
16 6000
17 Counsel for Defendant
18 Polychain Capital LP
Roger Cooper CLEARY GOTTLIEB racooper@cgsh.com
19 Jared Gerber STEEN & HAMILTON jgerber@cgsh.com
LLP
20 One Liberty Plaza
New York, NY 10006
21
Telephone: 212-225-
22 2283
23 Of Counsel for
Defendant Polychain
24 Capital LP
25
26
27
28
3
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT DOMINIC WILLIAMS
1 Matthew Rawlinson LATHAM & matthew.rawlinson@lw.com
WATKINS LLP
2 140 Scott Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
3 Telephone: 650-463-
3076
4 650-463-2600 (fax)
5 Counsel for AH Capital
Management, L.L.C.
6 Susan Engel LATHAM & susan.engel@lw.com
WATKINS LLP 555
7 Eleventh Street, NW,
Suite 1000
8 Washington, D.C.
20004-1304 Telephone:
9 202-637-2200
202-637-2201 (fax)
10
Counsel for AH Capital
11 Management, L.L.C.
Benjamin Naftalis LATHAM & benjamin.naftalis@lw.com
12 Gregory Mortenson WATKINS LLP 1271 gregory.mortenson@lw.com
Avenue of the Americas
13 New York, NY 10020
Telephone: 212-906-
14 1200
212-751-4864 (fax)
15
Counsel for AH Capital
16 Management, L.L.C.
17
18 COURT:
19 Court Address Email
San Mateo County Superior Court Department 22 – dept22@sanmateocourt.org
20 – Judge Danny Y. Chou Courtroom I complexcivil@sanmateocourt.org
1050 Mission Road
21
South San Francisco,
22 CA 94080
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT DOMINIC WILLIAMS
EXHIBIT
$/%&2*) .* 2) 2
/ 5- .43;4/; ;3 16 ;
' ; /514;3',,;3 16 ;4' ;0 13/.3; /. 1. ;(.;014( 5,1;7(4' ;
4' ;35--/.3
15,*.&3;. ; (3(/.3
4' ;35-(33(/.3;/ ;4' ;/00/3(.&;0149
16( ;4/;;1 01 3 .44(6 ;
;;0149;(3;1 01 3 .4 ;3 16( ;(3;- ;4/;4' ;1 01 3 .44(6 ;
/1-;
' ;35--/.3;15,(.&3;. ; (3(/.3;1 ;3 16 ;9;1 &)34 1 ;-(,;/1;9;/4' 1;- .3;
&(.34; /."1-4(/.;/ ;1 *04;
16( ;(3; /-0,(3' ;7' .;4' ; / 5- .4;'3; .;1 (6 ;9;4' ; 1 33 ;/1;
/. ;/ ;'(3;/1;' 1; -0,/9 3;/1;;0 13/.;/ ;4;, 34; ;9 13;/ ;& ;,*6(.&;(.;4' ;3- ;
'/53 '/, ; 5., 33;4' ; /514; (.3415 43;4'4;; / 5- .4;-534; ;3 16 ;0 13/.,,9;/.;
4' ; 1 33 ;
16( ;(3;,3/; - ;4/;'6 ; .; ! 4 ;
(.;4' ; 3 ;/ ;;1 &(34 1 ;, 44 1;4'4;'3;./4; .; /,, 4 ;/.;4' ;3 6 .4'; 9
$ 1;4' ; (, ;44 -04;4/;3 16 ;(4;01/6( ;4' ;0 13/.;' ;4/; 80 4;35 ';3 1:
6+
(.;4' ; 3 ;/ ;0 13/.,;3 16( ;( ;4' ; 1 33 ;1 %3 3;4/; 04;3 16( ;. ;(
35 ';1 %3,;(3;1 /1 ;9;4' ; 1 1 ;/.;4' ; 9;/ ;1 %3,
4' 1; / 5- .43;-9; ;3 16 ;9;1 &5,1;-(,;
, 41/.( ;3 16( ;
(4';4' ; /.3 .4;/ ;4' ;0 13/.; /. 2 ; 35--/.3 3; 15,(.&3;. ; (3(/.3;-9;
;3 16 ; , 41/.( ,,9;' 9;-534; 1; .; , 41/.* ;3(&.451 ;(.; /1 . ;7(4';
4' ; 1,; 4;/ ; ;1 '; /.;, 41/.( ;(&.451 3;
' ; 1,;/5. (,;1 &5,4 3 ;
; 4' ;3(&.451 ;4/; ;53 ;
4' ;#1-4;#1;35--/.3 3;15,(.&3;. ; (3(/.3;. ;4' (1;44 '- .43;
4' ;- 4'/ ;/ ;41.3-(33(/.;
' ( 2 12(( 02)22 2) 2,# 22) 2 2* #2 2)(2& -*)(% 2%"(-.* +2%(2
!* 2+%( 22(2 22 2&2 2
2
;; ;
EXHIBIT
Lorsque la partie est représentée, les actes sont notifiés à son représentant (art. 135).
Une notification personnelle à la partie représentée n’est pas prévue (voir par contre
art. 129, al. 2, AP). Il peut en effet être exigé du représentant qu’il informe la per-
sonne qu’il représente d’une citation. Le tribunal n’a pas à s’en charger. Ce système
est connu des procédures cantonales (p. ex., art. 108 CPC/BE; art. 74 CPC/LU;
art. 72 CPC/VD; art. 17 CPC/GE).
L’art. 136 règle la forme de la notification (al. 1 et 2). Il s’agit de remettre l’acte
directement au destinataire contre accusé de réception ou à une personne de son
entourage (p. ex., son conjoint, un employé de maison ou un enfant âgé de 16 ans
révolus). Cette réglementation est conforme à la jurisprudence actuelle151. Le tribu-
nal peut ordonner que l’acte soit notifié personnellement au destinataire (al. 2,
2e phr.). Cette possibilité peut en particulier être indiquée dans les litiges de droit de
la famille. L’al. 3 pose enfin les conditions de la fiction de notification. Les situa-
tions décrites correspondent à la jurisprudence constante.152
Le tribunal peut notifier des actes par voie électronique, ce qui lui permet de réduire
ses frais administratifs (art. 137). Le consentement préalable de la personne concer-
née est cependant requis (al. 1). Il se limite en principe au procès en cours. Mais il
peut également avoir une portée générale s’agissant par exemple d’avocats ayant à
faire régulièrement avec les autorités judiciaires. La solution proposée est identique
à l’organisation judiciaire fédérale (art. 60 LTF). La notification par voie électroni-
que est également rendue possible pour les autorités du droit de la poursuite et de la
faillite (art. 34 P-LP, ch. 17 de l’annexe).
La notification d’un acte à l’étranger peut être longue et compliquée surtout si aucun
accord international ne s’applique (art. 2). De ce fait, en vertu de l’art. 138, les
parties domiciliées à l’étranger peuvent être contraintes à élire domicile en Suisse
par le tribunal. Le projet répond ainsi à un vœu exprimé lors de la consultation.
L’art. 139, al. 1 décrit les situations où la notification peut se faire par voie édictale.
Le projet énumère les cas typiques bien connus (let. a, b et c).
5.9.3 Délais, défaut et restitution
Art. 140 à 142 Computation, observation et prolongation des délais
Le projet reprend les règles de procédure usuelles en la matière:
– Les règles sur le début et la computation d’un délai ont été coordonnées
avec l’organisation judiciaire fédérale (art. 140; voir art. 44 et 45 LTF).
L’al. 3 se réfère au siège du tribunal en ce qui concerne les jours fériés. Le
fait que la réglementation des jours fériés peut différer d’une région à l’autre
d’un même canton est ainsi pris en compte. Sont par ailleurs inclus tant les
jours fériés légaux que ceux qui y sont assimilés, conformément à l’art. 5 de
la convention européenne du 16 mai 1972 sur la computation des délais
(RS 0.221.122.3)153.
151 Voir p. ex., ATF 130 III 396; 122 I 97; arrêt du 18 octobre 1999 dans l’affaire K. c.
Procureur général du canton de Berne, SJ 2000, p. 118 ss.
152 P. ex., ATF 127 III 173; 122 III 316.
153 Voir ATF 124 II 527.
6918
Preview
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Michael E. Liftik (CA Bar No. 232430) 2 Sarah Heaton Concannon (pro hac vice) 1300 I Street, Suite 900 3 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 538-8000 4 michaelliftik@quinnemanuel.com sarahconcannon@quinnemanuel.com 5 6 Emily C. Kapur (CA Bar No. 306724) 555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th Fl. 7 Redwood Shores, California 94065 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 8 emilykapur@quinnemanuel.com 9 Attorneys for Specially Appearing Defendant Dominic Williams and Defendants Dfinity USA Research, LLC and Dfinity Stiftung 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 13 DANIEL OCAMPO, Individually and on Case No. 21-CIV-03843 Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 14 AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON Plaintiff, NTAH 15 v. Hon. Susan L. Greenberg 16 Dept. 22 – Ctrm. I DFINITY USA RESEARCH LLC, DFINITY Date Action Filed: July 15, 2021 17 STIFTUNG, AH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, Date: August 23, 2023 L.L.C., POLYCHAIN CAPITAL, DOMINIC Time: 9:00 a.m. PST 18 WILLIAMS, and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 21-CIV-03843 AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH 1 AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH 2 Mr. Simon Ntah, Partner at Baker McKenzie Switzerland, Geneva, located at Esplanade Pont- 3 Rouge 2, 1212 Grand-Lancy/Geneva (“Baker McKenzie”) affirms as follows: 4 I. Background and Qualifications 5 1. I am a partner at Baker McKenzie in Geneva, Switzerland, in the Dispute Resolution 6 Practice Group, since 2020. Prior to joining Baker McKenzie, I practiced as a 7 litigation attorney in Switzerland for over 15 years, including for 10 years as a partner 8 in a prominent litigation boutique in Geneva. 9 2. I obtained my law degree from the University of Geneva in 2003, and subsequently 10 gained admission to the bar of the Canton of Geneva in 2005. 11 3. I hold an LL.M. from the University of San Diego (2007), as well as an executive 12 MBA from the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) (2023). 13 II. Scope of Question Presented 14 4. I have been engaged to address a question related to service of judicial documents as 15 a matter of Swiss domestic law. 16 5. In particular, my engagement concerns the issue of an attempted service on Mr. 17 Dominic Williams. I have been asked to opine on the following questions: “Was 18 Plaintiff’s attempted service on Mr. Dominic Williams proper under Swiss law?”. I 19 am not opining on the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service 20 Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. 21 6. My analysis of this issue is based on my review of the document entitled “Proof of 22 service of summons and complaint on defendant Dominic Williams”.1 23 24 25 26 1 27 Ex. 1 (Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint on Defendant Dominic Williams, dated 3 August, 2022). 28 2 Case No. 21-CIV-03843 AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH 1 III. Issues of Swiss Law 2 A. Service per art. 138 CPC 3 7. Art. 138 of the Swiss Civil Procedural Code (“CPC”) governs the issue of the form of 4 service (in French: “Notification judiciaire”, “Forme”). 5 8. Art. 138 CPC defines the formalities for service of documents and under which 6 conditions they are served or are deemed to be served. If the form of service is 7 complied with, the addressee cannot object that they did not receive the document. 8 This provision thus ensures that the proceedings are conducted in compliance with 9 constitutional guarantees, and in particular the right of the parties to be heard.2 10 9. Art. 138 CPC states as follows: 11 “1 The summons, rulings and decisions are served by registered mail or by other 12 means against confirmation of receipt. 13 2 Service is accomplished when the document has been received by the 14 addressee or one of his or her employees or a person of at least 16 years of age 15 living in the same household, unless the court instructs that a document must be 16 17 served personally on the addressee. 18 3 Service is also deemed to have been effected: 19 20 J. Gschwend, Basler Kommentar Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO), Art. 138, p. 2 21 2-3 (para. 1) (“Gschwend”) (“Art. 138 regulates - as already partially for the proceedings in front of the Federal Supreme Court (BSK BGG-Amstutz/ Arnold, Art. 44 N 22)- in accordance 22 with the previous case law of the Federal Supreme Court the formalities of service of the 23 documents to be delivered according to art. 136 CPC and determines in particular for the summonses, orders and decisions to be served (para. 1) under which conditions they are served 24 (para. 2) or are deemed to be served in the sense of a fictitious service (para. 3). If the form of service is complied with, the addressee can no longer object that he has not received the 25 document (Report on the VE-CPC, 69 on Art. 128). This provision thus ensures that the 26 proceedings can be conducted in compliance with the constitutional guarantees, in particular the right of the parties to be heard, and can also be duly terminated by the proper service of the 27 final decision. By the fiction of service it prevents that the execution of the proceedings can be hindered or even made impossible by impossible or thwarted service.”). 28 3 Case No. 21-CIV-03843 AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH 1 a. in the case of a registered letter that has not been collected: on the seventh 2 day after the failed attempt to serve it provided the person had to expect such 3 service; 4 b. in the case of personal service if the addressee refuses to accept service and 5 if such refusal is recorded by the bearer: on the day of refusal. 6 4 Other documents may be served by regular mail.”3 7 B. Service of summons, rulings and decisions per Art. 138 (2) CPC 8 10. Art. 138 CPC distinguishes between summonses, orders and decisions (para. 1), and 9 other documents (para. 4). Paragraph 2, in particular, codifies the established case law 10 on service of summonses, orders and decisions: the document is deemed to have been 11 served when it has either been delivered to the addressee, or to one of their employees 12 or to a person at least 16 years of age living in the same household.4 13 11. What should be deemed as an “employee” is not defined by this provision of the 14 CPC. In addition, neither case law nor scholarly writings discuss this point in detail. 15 12. In the absence of a clear indication in the law, case law, or scholarly writing, the 16 dispatch (in French “Message”), prepared by the Swiss Federal Council, which aims 17 to explain in detail to the Swiss Federal Assembly the purpose of the bill, may 18 provide guidance as to the intent guiding the adoption of a provision. In the present 19 case, with respect to “Art. 134 to 139 Judicial notification”, the dispatch states as 20 follows (emphasis added):5 21 22 23 3 Ex. 2 (Art. 138 CPC). 24 4 Art. 138 (2) CPC states as follows (emphasis added): “Service is accomplished when the document has been received by the addressee or one of his or her employees or a person of at 25 least 16 years of age living in the same household, unless the court instructs that a document 26 must be served personally on the addressee.” 5 Ex. 3 (Dispatch of the CPC, dated 28 June 2006). 27 28 4 Case No. 21-CIV-03843 AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH 1 “ […] Art. 136 [currently Art. 138] regulates the form of the notification 2 (paragraphs 1 and 2). The document must be delivered directly to the 3 addressee against an acknowledgement of receipt or to a person close to them 4 (e.g. their spouse, a domestic employee or a child of 16 years of age or older). 5 This regulation is consistent with current case law. […].” 6 13. Therefore, based on the dispatch, a strict approach was envisioned when adopting 7 Art. 138 (2) CPC. The intent was that service be deemed valid only where 8 summonses, orders and decisions were delivered to the addressee directly, or to their 9 domestic employee or to a member of the household over the age of 16. 10 14. Although no case law could be found in this respect, I have considered whether 11 service could be valid where a non-domestic employee of the addressee, such as their 12 personal secretary, receives the documents.6 In my opinion, even assuming that such 13 a broader approach was admitted (which has never been confirmed), there should be 14 limits in order to comply with the ratio legis of Art. 138 (2) CPC, which aims, first 15 and foremost, at ensuring effective delivery of the document to the addressee. 16 Therefore, in my view, not any employee should be allowed to receive documents for 17 the purpose of Art. 138 (2) CPC. Indeed, case law confirms that even in cases where 18 corporate entities are to be served, it is not the case that simply any employee can 19 receive documents: “in addition to the bodies authorized to represent them, 20 21 6 See for instance N. J. Frei, Berner Kommentar Schweizerische Zivilprozessordnung 22 (2012), Art. 138 ZPO, p. 4 (para. 12) (“If the postal employee does not meet the person concerned at the address for service, service on an employee or another person living in the 23 same household is possible if this person is at least sixteen years old (e.g. to a spouse, a child or the secretary, Report of VE-CPC, p. 69).This rule corresponds in principle to previous practice 24 (Dispatch of the CPC, p. 7307),even though service on an employee who does not live in the 25 same household was not considered admissible. However, the wording of the Swiss CPC makes it clear that service may be made either on a sixteen-year-old employee or on a sixteen-year-old 26 person living in the same household. The person does not need to be expressly or tacitly authorized to receive court documents (BSK BGG-Amstutz/ Arnold, Art.44 N 29). On the other 27 hand, service may only be effected at the addressee’s place of residence, e.g. not at the place of residence of the employee or at the place of work of the person living in the same household as 28 the addressee (DIKE-Huber, art. 138 CPC N 41).” 5 Case No. 21-CIV-03843 AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH 1 employees of the lodge service or the secretariat in particular”7 are entitled to 2 receive documents per 138 (2) CPC, as opposed to, for instance, the gardener of the 3 company. I do not see why, where individuals, in their personal capacity, are to be 4 served, the approach should be stricter. In other words, in my view, only those 5 employees that are the closest to the addressee can comply with the requirements of 6 Art. 138 (2) CPC. This could for instance be the addressee’s personal assistant. 7 C. Improper service 8 15. In the present case, based on the document I reviewed, I am of the view that Mr. 9 Dominic Williams was not properly served as a matter of Swiss procedural law. 10 Indeed, I understand that the document to be served was delivered to Ms. Halanouva 11 Adela, i.e., an “office & event manager” of DFINITY Foundation. To my 12 understanding, Ms. Adela is not part of Mr. Dominic Williams’ household. Neither is 13 she employed by Mr. Dominic Williams as a domestic employee or in any other non- 14 domestic capacity that would make her a person “close to him.” In fact, she is not 15 employed by Mr. Dominic Williams at all, since she is employed by DFINITY 16 Foundation. Therefore, delivering the document to Ms. Adela did not comport with 17 the requirements of Art. 138 (2) CPC, and service of the document at hand was 18 invalid. 19 16. In the present case, service was invalid as a matter of Swiss procedural law. 20 7 See for instance Gschwend, p. 5 (para. 12) (“In addition to the addressee, employees or 21 persons living in the same household who are at least 16 years old are entitled to accept a judicial action (para. 2). The provision in para. 2.5.5 of Swiss Post’s General Terms and 22 Conditions, according to which all persons to be found in the same residence or business domicile are entitled to accept judicial actions (GTC “Postal services” for private customers; 23 ‘https://www.post.ch/de/pages/footer/allgemeine-geschaeftsbedingungen-agb? [as of 17 October 2016]), is probably not applicable in view of the clear wording (Huber, in: Brunner/ Gasser/ 24 Schwander, art. 138 N 38 CPC). If the addressee is in a public institution (home, hospital, 25 prison, etc.), the owner or manager of the institution or his authorized representative is entitled to receive the consignment (BGE 117 III 5 E. 1 = Pra 1992 no. 166). In the case of BGE 117 III 26 5, legal persons, in addition to the organs authorized to represent them, employees of the lodge service or the secretariat in particular are also entitled to receive (Gasser/ Rickli, art. 138 CPC N 27 4; Huber in: Brunner/ Gasser/ Schwander, art. 138 CPC N 35). A service on a person who is not entitled to receive pursuant to art. 138 para. 2 CPC is invalid and must be repeated (BK CPC- 28 Frei, art. 138 N 35).” 6 Case No. 21-CIV-03843 AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH 1 I affirm this 26th day of April, 2023, under the penalties of perjury under the 2 laws of New York, which may include a fine or imprisonment, that I am physically located 3 outside the geographic boundaries of the United States, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin 4 Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; 5 that the foregoing is true; and I understand that this document may be filed in an action or 6 proceeding in a court of law. 7 Executed at Esplanade Pont-Rouge 2, 1212 Grand-Laney/Geneva 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 Case No. 21-CIV-03843 AFFIRMATION OF MR. SIMON NTAH EXHIBIT 1 John T. Jasnoch (CA 281605) SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 2 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 3 Telephone: 619-233-4565 Facsimile: 619-233-0508 4 jjasnoch@scott-scott.com 5 Counsel for Plaintiff Daniel Ocampo 6 [Additional Counsel on Signature Page.] 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 DANIEL OCAMPO, Individually and on Behalf Case No. 21-CIV-03843 of All Others Similarly Situated, 11 CLASS ACTION Plaintiff, 12 v. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT DOMINIC 13 DFINITY USA RESEARCH LLC, DFINITY STIFTUNG, POLYCHAIN CAPITAL, DOMINIC WILLIAMS 14 WILLIAMS, AH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., and JOHN DOES 1-20, 15 Hon. Danny Y. Chou Defendants. Dept. 22 – Ctrm. I 16 Date Action Filed: July 15, 2021 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT DOMINIC WILLIAMS 1 I, John T. Jasnoch, am employed in the County of San Diego, State of California. I am over the 2 age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP, 3 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300, San Diego, CA 92101. My electronic service address is jjasnoch@scott- 4 scott.com. 5 On August 3, 2022, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, on the interested 6 parties in this action, as follows: 7 X By Electronic Filing 8 I caused said document(s) to be filed electronically using One Legal, an electronic filing 9 service provider of the Superior Court of San Mateo County; and 10 X By Electronic Mail 11 I caused said document(s) to be transmitted by electronic mail. The name(s) and email 12 address(es) of the person(s) served are set forth in the attached Service List. The document 13 was transmitted by electronic transmission and without error. 14 15 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true 16 and correct. 17 Executed on this 3rd day of August, 2022, at San Diego, California. 18 19 20 JOHN T. JASNOCH 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT DOMINIC WILLIAMS 1 SERVICE LIST Daniel Ocampo v. Dfinity USA Research LLC, et al., Case No. 21-CIV-03843 2 3 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS: 4 NAME FIRM EMAIL John T. Jasnoch SCOTT + SCOTT jjasnoch@scott-scott.com 5 ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 6 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-233-4565 7 619-233-0508 (fax) 8 Counsel for Plaintiff Daniel Ocampo 9 Sean T. Masson SCOTT + SCOTT smasson@scott-scott.com ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 10 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 11 Telephone: 212-223-6444 212-223-6334 (fax) 12 Counsel for Plaintiff Daniel 13 Ocampo 14 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS: 15 16 NAME FIRM EMAIL Alexander Mills CRAVATH, SWAINE amills@cravath.com 17 Kevin J. Orsini & MOORE LLP korsini@cravath.com Antony L. Ryan Worldwide Plaza aryan@cravath.com 18 825 Eighth Avenue Lauren M. Rosenberg New York, NY 10019- lrosenberg@cravath.com 19 7475 Telephone: 212-474- 20 1000 212-474-3700 (fax) 21 Counsel for Dfinity USA 22 Research LLC Michael Liftik QUINN EMANUEL michaelliftik@quinnemanuel.com 23 Sarah Heaton URQUHART & sarahconcannon@quinnemanuel.com Concannon SULLIVAN, LLP 24 1300 I Street, Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005 25 Telephone: 202-538- 8000 26 Counsel for Dfinity USA 27 Research LLC 28 2 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT DOMINIC WILLIAMS 1 Emily Kapur QUINN EMANUEL emilykapur@quinnemanuel.com URQUHART & 2 SULLIVAN, LLP 555 Twin Dolphin 3 Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 4 94065 Telephone: 650-801- 5 5000 6 Counsel for Dfinity USA Research LLC 7 Brenna Nelinson QUINN EMANUEL brennanelinson@quinnemanuel.com URQUHART & 8 SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 9 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 10 Telephone: 212-849- 7000 11 Counsel for Dfinity USA 12 Research LLC Peter R. Boutin KEESAL, YOUNG & peter.boutin@kyl.com 13 Christopher A. LOGAN christopher.stecher@kyl.com Stecher 450 Pacific Avenue 14 San Francisco, CA 15 94133 Telephone: 415-398- 16 6000 17 Counsel for Defendant 18 Polychain Capital LP Roger Cooper CLEARY GOTTLIEB racooper@cgsh.com 19 Jared Gerber STEEN & HAMILTON jgerber@cgsh.com LLP 20 One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 21 Telephone: 212-225- 22 2283 23 Of Counsel for Defendant Polychain 24 Capital LP 25 26 27 28 3 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT DOMINIC WILLIAMS 1 Matthew Rawlinson LATHAM & matthew.rawlinson@lw.com WATKINS LLP 2 140 Scott Drive Menlo Park, CA 94025 3 Telephone: 650-463- 3076 4 650-463-2600 (fax) 5 Counsel for AH Capital Management, L.L.C. 6 Susan Engel LATHAM & susan.engel@lw.com WATKINS LLP 555 7 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 8 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304 Telephone: 9 202-637-2200 202-637-2201 (fax) 10 Counsel for AH Capital 11 Management, L.L.C. Benjamin Naftalis LATHAM & benjamin.naftalis@lw.com 12 Gregory Mortenson WATKINS LLP 1271 gregory.mortenson@lw.com Avenue of the Americas 13 New York, NY 10020 Telephone: 212-906- 14 1200 212-751-4864 (fax) 15 Counsel for AH Capital 16 Management, L.L.C. 17 18 COURT: 19 Court Address Email San Mateo County Superior Court Department 22 – dept22@sanmateocourt.org 20 – Judge Danny Y. Chou Courtroom I complexcivil@sanmateocourt.org 1050 Mission Road 21 South San Francisco, 22 CA 94080 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON DEFENDANT DOMINIC WILLIAMS EXHIBIT $/%&2*) .* 2) 2 / 5- .43;4/; ;3 16 ; ' ; /514;3',,;3 16 ;4' ;0 13/.3; /. 1. ;(.;014( 5,1;7(4' ; 4' ;35--/.3 15,*.&3;. ; (3(/.3 4' ;35-(33(/.3;/ ;4' ;/00/3(.&;0149 16( ;4/;;1 01 3 .44(6 ; ;;0149;(3;1 01 3 .4 ;3 16( ;(3;- ;4/;4' ;1 01 3 .44(6 ; /1-; ' ;35--/.3;15,(.&3;. ; (3(/.3;1 ;3 16 ;9;1 &)34 1 ;-(,;/1;9;/4' 1;- .3; &(.34; /."1-4(/.;/ ;1 *04; 16( ;(3; /-0,(3' ;7' .;4' ; / 5- .4;'3; .;1 (6 ;9;4' ; 1 33 ;/1; /. ;/ ;'(3;/1;' 1; -0,/9 3;/1;;0 13/.;/ ;4;, 34; ;9 13;/ ;& ;,*6(.&;(.;4' ;3- ; '/53 '/, ; 5., 33;4' ; /514; (.3415 43;4'4;; / 5- .4;-534; ;3 16 ;0 13/.,,9;/.; 4' ; 1 33 ; 16( ;(3;,3/; - ;4/;'6 ; .; ! 4 ; (.;4' ; 3 ;/ ;;1 &(34 1 ;, 44 1;4'4;'3;./4; .; /,, 4 ;/.;4' ;3 6 .4'; 9 $ 1;4' ; (, ;44 -04;4/;3 16 ;(4;01/6( ;4' ;0 13/.;' ;4/; 80 4;35 ';3 1: 6+ (.;4' ; 3 ;/ ;0 13/.,;3 16( ;( ;4' ; 1 33 ;1 %3 3;4/; 04;3 16( ;. ;( 35 ';1 %3,;(3;1 /1 ;9;4' ; 1 1 ;/.;4' ; 9;/ ;1 %3, 4' 1; / 5- .43;-9; ;3 16 ;9;1 &5,1;-(,; , 41/.( ;3 16( ; (4';4' ; /.3 .4;/ ;4' ;0 13/.; /. 2 ; 35--/.3 3; 15,(.&3;. ; (3(/.3;-9; ;3 16 ; , 41/.( ,,9;' 9;-534; 1; .; , 41/.* ;3(&.451 ;(.; /1 . ;7(4'; 4' ; 1,; 4;/ ; ;1 '; /.;, 41/.( ;(&.451 3; ' ; 1,;/5. (,;1 &5,4 3 ; ; 4' ;3(&.451 ;4/; ;53 ; 4' ;#1-4;#1;35--/.3 3;15,(.&3;. ; (3(/.3;. ;4' (1;44 '- .43; 4' ;- 4'/ ;/ ;41.3-(33(/.; ' ( 2 12(( 02)22 2) 2,# 22) 2 2* #2 2)(2& -*)(% 2%"(-.* +2%(2 !* 2+%( 22(2 22 2&2 2 2 ;; ; EXHIBIT Lorsque la partie est représentée, les actes sont notifiés à son représentant (art. 135). Une notification personnelle à la partie représentée n’est pas prévue (voir par contre art. 129, al. 2, AP). Il peut en effet être exigé du représentant qu’il informe la per- sonne qu’il représente d’une citation. Le tribunal n’a pas à s’en charger. Ce système est connu des procédures cantonales (p. ex., art. 108 CPC/BE; art. 74 CPC/LU; art. 72 CPC/VD; art. 17 CPC/GE). L’art. 136 règle la forme de la notification (al. 1 et 2). Il s’agit de remettre l’acte directement au destinataire contre accusé de réception ou à une personne de son entourage (p. ex., son conjoint, un employé de maison ou un enfant âgé de 16 ans révolus). Cette réglementation est conforme à la jurisprudence actuelle151. Le tribu- nal peut ordonner que l’acte soit notifié personnellement au destinataire (al. 2, 2e phr.). Cette possibilité peut en particulier être indiquée dans les litiges de droit de la famille. L’al. 3 pose enfin les conditions de la fiction de notification. Les situa- tions décrites correspondent à la jurisprudence constante.152 Le tribunal peut notifier des actes par voie électronique, ce qui lui permet de réduire ses frais administratifs (art. 137). Le consentement préalable de la personne concer- née est cependant requis (al. 1). Il se limite en principe au procès en cours. Mais il peut également avoir une portée générale s’agissant par exemple d’avocats ayant à faire régulièrement avec les autorités judiciaires. La solution proposée est identique à l’organisation judiciaire fédérale (art. 60 LTF). La notification par voie électroni- que est également rendue possible pour les autorités du droit de la poursuite et de la faillite (art. 34 P-LP, ch. 17 de l’annexe). La notification d’un acte à l’étranger peut être longue et compliquée surtout si aucun accord international ne s’applique (art. 2). De ce fait, en vertu de l’art. 138, les parties domiciliées à l’étranger peuvent être contraintes à élire domicile en Suisse par le tribunal. Le projet répond ainsi à un vœu exprimé lors de la consultation. L’art. 139, al. 1 décrit les situations où la notification peut se faire par voie édictale. Le projet énumère les cas typiques bien connus (let. a, b et c). 5.9.3 Délais, défaut et restitution Art. 140 à 142 Computation, observation et prolongation des délais Le projet reprend les règles de procédure usuelles en la matière: – Les règles sur le début et la computation d’un délai ont été coordonnées avec l’organisation judiciaire fédérale (art. 140; voir art. 44 et 45 LTF). L’al. 3 se réfère au siège du tribunal en ce qui concerne les jours fériés. Le fait que la réglementation des jours fériés peut différer d’une région à l’autre d’un même canton est ainsi pris en compte. Sont par ailleurs inclus tant les jours fériés légaux que ceux qui y sont assimilés, conformément à l’art. 5 de la convention européenne du 16 mai 1972 sur la computation des délais (RS 0.221.122.3)153. 151 Voir p. ex., ATF 130 III 396; 122 I 97; arrêt du 18 octobre 1999 dans l’affaire K. c. Procureur général du canton de Berne, SJ 2000, p. 118 ss. 152 P. ex., ATF 127 III 173; 122 III 316. 153 Voir ATF 124 II 527. 6918