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 defendants. 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.

CONCLUSION

 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.