Marani v. Cramer

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Oakland Division 11 KEVIN MARANI, Case No. 19-cv-05538-YGR (LB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING LETTER 13 v. ROGATORY

14 MICHAEL CRAMER, et al., Re: ECF No. 56 15 Defendants. 16 17 The plaintiff moved to serve defendant Jon Hanna, who resides in Panama, through the letter 18 rogatory process authorized under the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory. Panama 19 apparently is a signatory to that convention.1 The court identifies several possible issues. 20 First, the court is aware — because it did some independent research — that Panama is a 21 signatory to the Inter-American Convention. See, e.g., Thunderbird Resorts, Inc. v. Mitzim Props., 22 Inc., Case No. 15cv1304 JAH (BGS), 2019 WL 1098978, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2019). The 23 court found an online copy, but going forward, it would be helpful if the plaintiff would cite the 24 convention in retrievable format or and attach it. (The court is used to parties attaching the 25 relevant MLATs or conventions or at least citing to a retrievable version.) 26 27 1 Mot. – ECF No. 56 at 2. Citations refer to the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to ] Second, the court’s understanding is that the U.S. Central Authority requires a Form USM- 2 || 272. See, e.g., Thunderbird Resorts, Inc. v. Mitzim Props., Inc., Case No. 15cv1304 JAH (BGS), 3 Request — ECF No. 45 & Letter Rogatory — ECF No. 55 (attached to this order). The court 4 || appreciates that the plaintiff's letter rogatory mimics the form, but in other cases, parties have 5 submitted the actual form. See, e.g., id. If the plaintiff's experience is different, then perhaps the 6 || current form is sufficient. The court merely flags the issue. 7 Third, the plaintiff served Mr. Hanna personally in Panama with the complaint, presumably 8 satisfying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(2)(A).!! The reason the plaintiff wants to serve him 9 || by letter rogatory (in addition to serving him personally) because he is concerned that Panama will 10 || require service through the Inter-American Convention before it executes any judgment against 11 Mr. Hanna’s assets in Panama. (/d.) But the United States apparently interprets the convention as = 12 || “limited to covering service of process. . . .”!2 And according to the plaintiff, service is effective as . . || to Mr. Hanna." The court is not certain that a second form of service to allow execution of a

14 || judgment in a foreign country is something within the scope of the convention, at least according 3 15 || to the U.S. Central Authority, when service has already been accomplished. The court asks the © 16 || plaintiff to address the issue in a renewed motion.

17 The renewed motion does not need to reiterate anything in the existing motion and instead may Z 18 supplement the earlier motion with any additional authority and forms. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Lp 20 Dated: October 31, 2021 LAUREL BEELER 21 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 || OO '! Service Update — ECF No. 28. The court does not see the plaintiff’s proof of service on the docket 24 (but perhaps is overlooking it). See id. at 2 (proofs of service are being collected and will be filed). > 7 U.S. Dep’t of State — Bureau. of Consular Affs., Inter-Am. Serv. Convention & Additional Protocol, 5 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ > Process/Inter-American-Service-Convention-A dditional-Protocol.html (last visited October 31, 2021); 6 || U.S. Permanent Mission to the Orgs. of Am. States, Letter to Secretariat for Legal Affs. of the Org. (Jai > 22, 2021), http://www.oas.org/en/sla/dil/docs/inter_american_treaties_central_authority_ United □□□□□□ 7 21-2021 pdf. 28 '8 Mot. — ECF No. 56 at 2 (the plaintiff “effectively served” Mr. Hanna). ORDER — 19-cv-0N5538-YGR (TR)