Service of Process F.R.C.P. 4 Contractual Provision Jamaican Law
Copia Communications, LLC v. Amresorts, L.P., PICS Case No.17-1110 (E.D. Pa. June 20, 2017) Baylson, J. (12 pages).
Court denied plaintiff's motion for default judgment in its breach of contract action because plaintiff failed to properly serve Jamaican defendant where plaintiff failed to comply with the service of process provision in the contract and also failed to comply with F.R.C.P. 4. Motion denied, plaintiff granted 30 days to properly effectuate service of process.
Plaintiff sued defendants alleging breach of contract arising out of an agreement for plaintiff to provide internet services at two Jamaican hotels. Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default judgment and defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process.
Plaintiff's affidavit asserted service of process by a bailiff on two individuals allegedly designated by Jamaican law to accept service of process on defendants. The court concluded that plaintiff did not satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the validity of the service. The contract expressly agreed on the manner of service and plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of the contract. Plaintiff asserted that the contract did not necessarily displace F.R.C.P. 4, but plaintiff also failed to comply with F.R.C.P. 4. The contract provided that the signatory to the contract was the "company secretary" but he was not one of the people served by the bailiff. Additionally, it was also clear that the property at which plaintiff allegedly served the defendant was not the defendant's "registered office."
Jamaica was not a signatory to the Hague Convention and there was no internationally agreed means within the language of Rule 4(f)(2). Service was appropriate under Rule 4(f)(2)(A) only if it satisfied Jamaican law. The court looked to the Jamaican civil procedure rules and determined that plaintiff failed to comply with any of the acceptable methods of service detailed in the rules. Plaintiff did not send or leave the claim form at defendants' registered office and did not serve it personally on any director, officer, receiver, liquidator or on any "officer or manager." The evidence showed that the two individuals who were served were mid-level employees who were not authorized to accept service.
The court denied plaintiffs' motion for default judgment and granted plaintiff 30 days to effectuate proper service.