[This article is a follow-up to my numerous posts regarding the manner in which the government of Mexico treats legal cases originating in the United States and being served upon Mexican entities.]
To say the least, the government of Mexico has stooped to new levels in protecting its citizens and business entities against lawsuits from outside the country.
The Hague Service Convention is the current treaty, that was ratified by Mexico, which provides the transmittal of legal documents from one country to another. All signatory nations of the Convention are obliged to abide by the terms of the treaty. However, Mexico has become a maverick nation when it comes to such service and has placed every conceivable roadblock in the way of service of process there.
In the past, Mexico followed the provisions of the Convention without problem. However, within the past year the judicial authorities in Mexico have created some interesting obstacles, such as adding new requirements to the transmittal of service request documents, requiring unnecessary translation of specific forms, and requiring additional wording on judicial requests, which are in direct violation of the treaty. The U.S. Department of State has filed objections but they are currently being ignored by the Mexican authorities.
To say the least, the government of Mexico has stooped to new levels in protecting its citizens and business entities against lawsuits from outside the country.
The Hague Service Convention is the current treaty, that was ratified by Mexico, which provides the transmittal of legal documents from one country to another. All signatory nations of the Convention are obliged to abide by the terms of the treaty. However, Mexico has become a maverick nation when it comes to such service and has placed every conceivable roadblock in the way of service of process there.
In the past, Mexico followed the provisions of the Convention without problem. However, within the past year the judicial authorities in Mexico have created some interesting obstacles, such as adding new requirements to the transmittal of service request documents, requiring unnecessary translation of specific forms, and requiring additional wording on judicial requests, which are in direct violation of the treaty. The U.S. Department of State has filed objections but they are currently being ignored by the Mexican authorities.
[“Mexico has the audacity to require that legal documents filed in U.S. courts . . . must adhere to stricter standards than documents coming from other countries.”]
Mexico has the audacity to require that legal documents filed in U.S. courts which are being served on Mexican corporate and individual defendants must adhere to stricter standards than documents coming from other countries. It can be speculated that the reasons include 1) retaliation for the U.S. tightening the border with Mexico, 2) an attempt to gain trade and criminal prosecution concessions from the U.S., 3) attempting to “flex its muscle” against the U.S., and 4) a desire to protect the assets of its citizens and business entities against U.S.-based lawsuits.
Specifically, Mexico now requires that the summons of any civil case originating in the United States must state that the period granted to the defendant to answer the complaint be computed using calendar days. The wording must be specific. Secondly, they recently instituted a requirement that the law which governs service of the documents must be provided, in full, as part of the pleadings. Lastly, they now require that only the court of U.S. jurisdiction be named as the “requesting party” or “applicant.” Mexico is the only Hague Service Convention signatory to impose such a requirement AND it is only imposed on U.S.-based cases.
The most recent tactic is for the Central Authority to reject the service by simply stating “The local court did not execute the service, as requested” with no explanation as to the reason. That requires a further follow-up by the attorney of record and results in additional delays.
The staff of Process Service Network maintains a diligent, watchful eye on the Central Authority of Mexico and takes the necessary steps to stay abreast of their changes by quickly conforming to their newly-adopted requirements. For example: recently, Mexico required that the specific law that governs service in the court of jurisdiction be cited on the Request for Service Abroad, a practice which Hague authorities in The Netherlands says is not only not a requirement of the Convention, but also exceeds the parameters of the adopted form for use in judicial matters between Hague nations.
What’s the solution for law firms who file suit against Mexican entities? Rather than submitting the required Hague forms (as in the past), and risking a rejection of the service (which is almost guaranteed to happen), finding a knowledgeable international process service firm is a must. Firms such as Process Service Network can avoid any unnecessary delays by submitting properly prepared documents that conform to the current, yet unfair, practices of the government of Mexico.
Process Service Network can be found at www.processnet1.com or email at processnet@sbcglobal.net or call to 800-417-7623.
Specifically, Mexico now requires that the summons of any civil case originating in the United States must state that the period granted to the defendant to answer the complaint be computed using calendar days. The wording must be specific. Secondly, they recently instituted a requirement that the law which governs service of the documents must be provided, in full, as part of the pleadings. Lastly, they now require that only the court of U.S. jurisdiction be named as the “requesting party” or “applicant.” Mexico is the only Hague Service Convention signatory to impose such a requirement AND it is only imposed on U.S.-based cases.
The most recent tactic is for the Central Authority to reject the service by simply stating “The local court did not execute the service, as requested” with no explanation as to the reason. That requires a further follow-up by the attorney of record and results in additional delays.
The staff of Process Service Network maintains a diligent, watchful eye on the Central Authority of Mexico and takes the necessary steps to stay abreast of their changes by quickly conforming to their newly-adopted requirements. For example: recently, Mexico required that the specific law that governs service in the court of jurisdiction be cited on the Request for Service Abroad, a practice which Hague authorities in The Netherlands says is not only not a requirement of the Convention, but also exceeds the parameters of the adopted form for use in judicial matters between Hague nations.
What’s the solution for law firms who file suit against Mexican entities? Rather than submitting the required Hague forms (as in the past), and risking a rejection of the service (which is almost guaranteed to happen), finding a knowledgeable international process service firm is a must. Firms such as Process Service Network can avoid any unnecessary delays by submitting properly prepared documents that conform to the current, yet unfair, practices of the government of Mexico.
Process Service Network can be found at www.processnet1.com or email at processnet@sbcglobal.net or call to 800-417-7623.
Posts
