Points and Authorities


The U.S. Supreme Court in Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust & Bank

Co., 22 ILL.339, U.S. 306, 70 S. Ct. 652, 94 L. Ed. 865 (1950),

found that, “It is a logical step forward in the evolution of civil  

  procedure that the use of new technologies in common communication

  be utilized.”

U.S. courts have reasoned that service by publication on foreign

defendants is permitted under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

4(F)(3).  Rule 4 allows service of process on a foreign individual:

(1) by internationally agreed upon means of service reasonably

calculated to give notice; (2) by a reasonably calculated method as

prescribed by the country’s law for service for general actions or

as the foreign authority directs to a letter rogatory; or (3) by

other means not prohibited by international agreement.  Because the

1993 amendments to FRCP 4(F) urge that FRCP (4)(3) be construed

liberally, the courts have interpreted FRCP 4(F)(3) as authorizing

them to utilize technological advancements for serving foreign


Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4((3)(1) provides that

Service of an individual . . . may be effected in any judicial

  district of the United States pursuant to the law of the state in

  which the district court is located . . .”

The challenge facing plaintiff in this case is there are no

traditional newspapers in most countries that will allow for publication

of legal notices which originate in courts in the United States or Canada.



 Global Legal Notices® offers an improved method of providing actual

notice to a defendant of a pending lawsuit while satisfying the

Court’s requirements for service by publication.


It is widely held that service by publication has a limited success

rate in providing actual notice to a defendant that a legal case is

pending.  Yet, courts routinely issue an order allowing for service

by publication in a newspaper, either print or online, as a last

resort method to complete service of process.

Contact Us