Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk
| Decision Date | 15 June 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1052,86-1052 |
| Citation | 100 L.Ed.2d 722,486 U.S. 694,108 S.Ct. 2104 |
| Parties | VOLKSWAGENWERK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, Petitioner v. Herwig J. SCHLUNK, administrator of Estates of Franz J. Schlunk and Sylvia Schlunk, Deceased |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
After his parents were killed in an automobile accident, respondent filed a wrongful death action in an Illinois court, alleging that defects in the automobile designed and sold by Volkswagen of America, Inc. (VWoA), in which the parents were driving, caused or contributed to their deaths. When VWoA's answer denied that it had designed or assembled the vehicle, respondent amended his complaint to add as a defendant petitioner here (VWAG), a German corporation which is the sole owner of VWoA. Respondent attempted to serve the amended complaint on VWAG by serving VWoA as VWAG's agent. Filing a special and limited appearance, VWAG moved to quash the service on the grounds that it could be served only in accordance with the Hague Service Convention, and that respondent had not complied with the Convention's requirements. The court denied the motion, reasoning that VWoA and VWAG are so closely related that VWoA is VWAG's agent for service of process as a matter of law, notwithstanding VWAG's failure or refusal to appoint VWoA formally as an agent. The court concluded that, because service was accomplished in this country, the Convention did not apply. The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed, ruling that the Illinois long-arm statute authorized substituted service on VWoA, and that such service did not violate the Convention.
Held: The Hague Service Convention does not apply when process is served on a foreign corporation by serving its domestic subsidiary which, under state law, is the foreign corporation's involuntary agent for service. Pp. 698-708.
(a) The service of process in this case is not covered by Article 1 of the Convention, which provides that the Convention "shall apply . . . where there is occasion to transmit a judicial . . . document for service abroad." "Service" means a formal delivery of documents that is legally sufficient to charge the defendant with notice of a pending action. Since the Convention does not itself prescribe a standard for determining the legal sufficiency of the delivery, the internal law of the forum state controls. Thus, where, as here, the forum state's law does not define the applicable method of serving process as requiring the transmittal of docu- ments abroad, the Convention does not apply. This interpretation is consistent with the negotiating history and the general purposes of the Convention. One purpose of the Convention is to provide means to facilitate service of process abroad. The Convention implements this purpose by requiring each state to establish a central authority to assist in the service of process, and nothing in the present decision interferes with that requirement. Another purpose of the Convention is to assure foreign defendants adequate notice. The present decision does not necessarily advance this purpose, because it makes application of the Convention depend on the forum's internal law; however, it is unlikely that any country will draft its internal laws deliberately so as to circumvent the Convention in cases in which it would be appropriate to transmit judicial documents for service abroad. Furthermore, this decision does not prevent voluntary compliance with the Convention even when the forum's internal law does not so require, and such compliance can be advantageous. Pp. 698-706.
(b) VWAG's contention that service upon it was not complete until VWoA transmitted the complaint to it in Germany, and that this transmission "for service abroad" rendered the Convention applicable to the case under Article 1, is without merit. Where, as here, service on a domestic agent is valid and complete under both state law and the Due Process Clause without an official transmission of documents abroad, the inquiry ends and the Convention has no further implications. Pp. 706-708.
145 Ill.App.3d 594, 105 Ill.Dec. 39, 503 N.E.2d 1045, affirmed.
Herbert Rubin, New York City, for petitioner.
Jack Samuel Ring, Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
Jeffrey P. Minear, for U.S., as amicus curiae, supporting respondent, by special leave of Court.
This case involves an attempt to serve process on a foreign corporation by serving its domestic subsidiary which, under state law, is the foreign corporation's involuntary agent for service of process. We must decide whether such service is compatible with the Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965 (Hague Service Convention), [1969] 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638.
The parents of respondent Herwig Schlunk were killed in an automobile accident in 1983. Schlunk filed a wrongful death action on their behalf in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Schlunk alleged that Volkswagen of America, Inc. (VWoA), had designed and sold the automobile that his parents were driving, and that defects in the automobile caused or contributed to their deaths. Schlunk also alleged that the driver of the other automobile involved in the collision was negligent; Schlunk has since obtained a default judgment against that person, who is no longer a party to this lawsuit. Schlunk successfully served his complaint on VWoA, and VWoA filed an answer denying that it had designed or assembled the automobile in question. Schlunk then amended the complaint to add as a defendant Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (VWAG), which is the petitioner here. VWAG, a corporation established under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, has its place of business in that country. VWoA is a wholly owned subsidiary of VWAG. Schlunk attempted to serve his amended complaint on VWAG by serving VWoA as VWAG's agent.
VWAG filed a special and limited appearance for the purpose of quashing service. VWAG asserted that it could be served only in accordance with the Hague Service Convention, and that Schlunk had not complied with the Convention's requirements. The Circuit Court denied VWAG's motion. It first observed that VWoA is registered to do business in Illinois and has a registered agent for receipt of process in Illinois. The court then reasoned that VWoA and VWAG are so closely related that VWoA is VWAG's agent for service of process as a matter of law, notwithstanding VWAG's failure or refusal to appoint VWoA formally as an agent. The court relied on the facts that VWoA is a wholly owned subsidiary of VWAG, that a majority of the members of the board of directors of VWoA are members of the board of VWAG, and that VWoA is by contract the exclusive importer and distributor of VWAG products sold in the United States. The court concluded that, because service was accomplished within the United States, the Hague Service Convention did not apply.
The Circuit Court certified two questions to the Appellate Court of Illinois. For reasons similar to those given by the Circuit Court, the Appellate Court determined that VWoA is VWAG's agent for service of process under Illinois law, and that the service of process in this case did not violate the Hague Service Convention. 145 Ill.App.3d 594, 105 Ill.Dec. 39, 503 N.E.2d 1045 (1986). After the Supreme Court of Illinois denied VWAG leave to appeal, 112 Ill.2d 595 (1986), VWAG petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Appellate Court's interpretation of the Hague Service Convention. We granted certiorari to address this issue, 484 U.S. 895, 108 S.Ct. 226, 98 L.Ed.2d 185 (1987), which has given rise to disagreement among the lower courts. Compare Ex parte Volkswagenwerk A.G., 443 So.2d 880, 881 (Ala.1983) (); Zisman v. Sieger, 106 F.R.D. 194, 199-200 (ND Ill.1985) (same); Lamb v. Volkswagenwerk A.G., 104 F.R.D. 95, 97 (SD Fla.1985) (same); McHugh v. International Components Corp., 118 Misc.2d 489, 491-492, 461 N.Y.S.2d 166, 167-168 (1983) (same), with Cippolla v. Picard Porsche Audi, Inc., 496 A.2d 130, 131-132 (R.I.1985) (); Wingert v. Volkswagenwerk A.G., Civ.Action Nos. 3:86-2994-16 and 3:86-2995-16 , slip op., at 3-4 (same).
The Hague Service Convention is a multilateral treaty that was formulated in 1964 by the Tenth Session of the Hague Conference of Private International Law. The Convention revised parts of the Hague Conventions on Civil Procedure of 1905 and 1954. The revision was intended to provide a simpler way to serve process abroad, to assure that defendants sued in foreign jurisdictions would receive actual and timely notice of suit, and to facilitate proof of service abroad. 3 1964 Conference de la Haye de Droit International Prive, Actes et Documents de la Dixieme Session (Notification) 75-77, 363 (1965) (3 Actes et Documents); 1 B. Ristau, International Judicial Assistance (Civil and Commercial) § 4-1 (1984 and 1 Supp.1986) (1 Ristau). Representatives of all 23 countries that were members of the Conference approved the Convention without reservation. Thirty-two countries, including the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, have ratified or acceded to the Convention. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 2, n. 2 (filed Sep. 12, 1987).
The primary innovation of the Convention is that it requires each state to establish a central authority to receive requests for service of documents from other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanchez-Llamas v. Bustillo, Nos. 04–10566
...371 (No. 8, 269) (Mass.1820) (case involved conflict of laws, not an international treaty); Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 700, 108 S.Ct. 2104, 100 L.Ed.2d 722 (1988) (case said that “we almost necessarily must refer to the internal law of the forum state” to fi......
-
U.S. ex rel. Rickard v. Sternes
...Inc. v. Floyd, 499 U.S. 530, 534, 111 S.Ct. 1489, 113 L.Ed.2d 569 (1991)) (in turn quoting Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 699, 108 S.Ct. 2104, 100 L.Ed.2d 722 (1988)). If the language is clear and unambiguous, the court does not look beyond the written words. Ma......
-
Elec. Frontier Found. v. Global Equity Mgmt. (SA) Pty Ltd., Case No. 17–cv–02053–JST
...in the receiving nation, which in the United States is the Department of Justice. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 704–705, 108 S.Ct. 2104, 100 L.Ed.2d 722 (1988). According to EFF, while GEMSA served the final entered injunction via the DOJ, it did not serve the ......
-
In re West Caribbean Airways, S.A.
...1352, 140 L.Ed.2d 529 (1998) (per curiam); accord Sanchez-Llamas, 126 S.Ct. at 2682-83; Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 700, 108 S.Ct. 2104, 100 L.Ed.2d 722 (1988); Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Court for Southern Dist. of Iowa, 482 U.......
-
Don’t know where your defendant is? You still have to *look* for them.
...by recognizing the exclusive nature of the Hague Service Convention, as clearly held in Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (1988). Reuters dropped this story into my newsfeed late last month, and I started reading with incredible (ultimately dashed) optimism. The cas......
-
Strict Formalism Or Actual Notice? Supreme Court Denies Petition For Writ Of Certiorari In Important Service Of Process Case Under The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
...found it necessary to grant cert regarding the Hague Convention's scope before, such as in Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (1988) and Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 137 S. Ct. 1504 (2017). Granting cert here would have provided further necessary guidance of interpre......
-
Publication, 4(f)(3), and Mexican Cartels
...Service Convention supersedes everything in its path, given the crystal clear holding of Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 699 (1988). In Rio Properties, the court didn’t address Hague applicability, because it didn’t need to. Costa Rica hadn’t signed on to the tre......
-
Judge Albright gets the Hague “alternative” question right, and so do others.
...First Street hold sway. In this instance, I mean Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 699 and 706 (1988) holds sway. But you’d be amazed at how many lawyers– and courts– get it wrong. It’s not a difficult concept. The two holdings in Schlunk utterly destroy the argume......
-
Civil Procedure - Ninth Circuit focuses on importance of subsidiary rather than control to impose general jurisdiction over foreign corporation - Bauman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
...claim for assertion of jurisdiction over subsidiary because of parent's contacts); Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 705 n.* (1988) (noting Cannon held activities of subsidiary not necessarily enough to attribute jurisdiction to parent). In Goodyear, the plaintiff ......
-
SUBSTITUTED SERVICE AND THE HAGUE SERVICE CONVENTION.
...GEORGE A. BERMANN, WILLIAM S. DODGE & DONALD EARL CHILDRESS III, TRANSNATIONAL LITIGATION IN A NUTSHELL 297-303 (2d ed. 2021). (7.) 486 U.S. 694, 699 (8.) Hague Service Convention, supra note 6, art. 1. (9.) Schlunk, 486 U.S. at 700. (10.) Id. at 706. (11.) Id. at 707-08. (12.) See, e.g......
-
Here Lions Roam: Cisg as the Measure of a Claim's Value and Validity and a Debtor's Dischargeability
...practical construction adopted by the parties." (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 699 (1988))), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 897 (2000).167. Medellin, 552 U.S. at 507 (internal quotation marks omitted); accord El Al Israel Airli......
-
1995 Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission Antitrust Enforcement Guidelines for International Operations
...has a related company in the United States acting as its agent or alter ego.”); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 4; Volkswagenwerk AG v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 707-708 (1988); United States v. Scophony Corp., 333 U.S. 795, 810-818 (1948). 108. For example, 28 U.S.C. § 1783(a) (1988) authorizes a U.......