Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon

• Decision Date: 22 May 2017
• Docket Number: No. 16–254.,16–254.
• Citation: 137 S.Ct. 1504,197 L.Ed.2d 826
• Parties: WATER SPLASH, INC., petitioner v. Tara MENON.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

137 S.Ct. 1504

197 L.Ed.2d 826

WATER SPLASH, INC., petitioner

v.Tara MENON.

No. 16–254.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued March 22, 2017.

Decided May 22, 2017.

Jeremy Gaston, Houston, TX, for petitioner.

Elaine J. Goldenberg, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the petitioner.

Timothy A. Hootman, Houston, TX, for respondent.

Jeremy Gaston, Andrew K. Meade, Hawash Meade Gaston, Neese & Cicack LLP, Houston, TX, for petitioner.

Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case concerns the scope of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965 (Hague Service Convention), 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638. The purpose of that multilateral treaty is to simplify, standardize, and generally improve the process of serving documents abroad. Preamble, ibid. ; see Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 698, 108 S.Ct. 2104, 100 L.Ed.2d 722 (1988). To that end, the Hague Service Convention specifies certain approved methods of service and "pre-empts inconsistent methods of service" wherever it applies. Id., at 699, 108 S.Ct. 2104. Today we address a question that has divided the lower courts: whether the Convention prohibits service by mail. We hold that it does not.

I

A

Petitioner Water Splash is a corporation that produces aquatic playground systems. Respondent Menon is a former employee of Water Splash. In 2013, Water Splash sued Menon in state court in Texas, alleging that she had begun working for a competitor while still employed by Water Splash. 472 S.W.3d 28, 30 (Tex.App.2015). Water Splash asserted several causes of action, including unfair competition, conversion, and tortious interference with business relations. Because Menon resided in Canada, Water Splash sought and obtained permission to effect service by mail. Ibid. After Menon declined to answer or otherwise enter an appearance, the trial court issued a default judgment in favor of Water Splash. Menon moved to set aside the judgment on the ground that she had not been properly served, but the trial court denied the motion. Ibid.

Menon appealed, arguing that service by mail does not "comport with the requirements of the Hague Service Convention." Ibid. The Texas Court of Appeals majority sided with Menon and held that the Convention prohibits service of process by mail. Id., at 32. Justice Christopher dissented. Id ., at 34. The Court of Appeals declined to review the matter en banc, App. 95–96, and the Texas Supreme Court denied discretionary review, id., at 97–98.

The disagreement between the panel majority and Justice Christopher tracks a broader conflict among courts as to whether the Convention permits service through postal channels. Compare, e.g., Bankston v. Toyota Motor Corp. , 889 F.2d 172, 173–174 (C.A.8 1989) (holding that the Convention prohibits service by mail), and Nuovo Pignone, SpA v. STORMAN ASIA M/V, 310 F.3d 374, 385 (C.A.5 2002) (same), with, e.g., Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 802 (C.A.9 2004) (holding that the Convention allows service by mail), and Ackermann v. Levine, 788 F.2d 830, 838–840 (C.A.2 1986) (same). We granted certiorari to resolve that conflict. 580 U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 547, 196 L.Ed.2d 442 (2016).

B

The "primary innovation" of the Hague Service Convention—set out in Articles 2–7—is that it "requires each state to establish a central authority to receive requests for service of documents from other countries." Schlunk, supra, at 698, 108 S.Ct. 2104. When a central authority receives an appropriate request, it must serve the documents or arrange for their service, Art. 5, and then provide a certificate of service, Art. 6.

Submitting a request to a central authority is not, however, the only method of service approved by the Convention. For example, Article 8 permits service through diplomatic and consular agents; Article 11 provides that any two states can agree to methods of service not otherwise specified in the Convention; and Article 19 clarifies that the Convention does not preempt any internal laws of its signatories that permit service from abroad via methods not otherwise allowed by the Convention.

At issue in this case is Article 10 of the Convention, the English text of which reads as follows:

"Provided the State of destination does not object, the present Convention shall not interfere with—

"(a) the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad,

"(b) the freedom of judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of origin to effect service of judicial documents directly through the judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of destination,

"(c) the freedom of any person interested in a judicial proceeding to effect service of judicial documents directly through the judicial officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of destination." 20 U.S.T., at 363.

Articles 10(b) and 10(c), by their plain terms, address additional methods of service that are permitted by the Convention (unless the receiving state objects). By contrast, Article 10(a) does not expressly refer to "service." The question in this case is whether, despite this textual difference, the Article 10(a) phrase "send judicial documents" encompasses sending documents for the purposes of service .

II

A

In interpreting treaties, "we begin with the text of the treaty and the context in which the written words are used." Schlunk, 486 U.S., at 699, 108 S.Ct. 2104 (internal quotation marks omitted). For present purposes, the key word in Article 10(a) is "send." This is a broad term,¹ and there is no apparent reason why it would exclude the transmission of documents for a particular purpose (namely, service). Moreover, the structure of the Hague Service Convention strongly counsels against such a reading.

The key structural point is that the scope of the Convention is limited to service of documents. Several elements of the Convention indicate as much. First, the preamble states that the Convention is intended "to ensure that judicial and extrajudicial documents to be served abroad shall be brought to the notice of the addressee in sufficient time." (Emphasis added.) And Article 1 defines the Convention's scope by stating that the Convention "shall apply in all cases, in civil or commercial matters, where there is occasion to transmit a judicial or extrajudicial document for service abroad ." (Emphasis added.) Even the Convention's full title reflects that the Convention concerns "Service Abroad."

We have also held as much. Schlunk, 486 U.S., at 701, 108 S.Ct. 2104 (stating that the Convention "applies only to documents transmitted for service abroad"). As we explained, a preliminary draft of Article 1 was criticized "because it suggested that the Convention could apply to transmissions abroad that do not culminate in service." Ibid. The final version of Article 1, however, "eliminates this possibility." Ibid. The wording of Article 1 makes clear that the Convention "applies only when there is both transmission of a document from the requesting state to the receiving state, and service upon the person for whom it is intended." Ibid.

In short, the text of the Convention reveals, and we have explicitly held, that the scope of the Convention is limited to service of documents. In light of that, it would be quite strange if Article 10(a)—apparently alone among the Convention's provisions—concerned something other than service of documents.

Indeed, under that reading, Article 10(a) would be superfluous. The function of Article 10 is to ensure that, absent objection from the receiving state, the Convention "shall not interfere" with the activities described in 10(a), 10(b) and 10(c). But Article 1 already "eliminates [the] possibility" that the Convention would apply to any communications that "do not culminate in service," id., at 701, 108 S.Ct. 2104 so it is hard to imagine how the Convention could interfere with any non-service communications. Accordingly, in order for Article 10(a) to do any work, it must pertain to sending documents for the purposes of service.

Menon attempts to avoid this superfluity problem by suggesting that Article 10(a) does refer to serving documents—but only some documents. Specifically, she makes a distinction between two categories of service. According to Menon, Article 10(a) does not apply to service of process (which we have defined as "a formal delivery of documents that is legally sufficient to charge the defendant with notice of a pending action," id., at 700, 108 S.Ct. 2104 ). But Article 10(a) does apply, Menon suggests, to the service of "post-answer judicial documents" (that is, any additional documents which may have to be served later in the litigation). Brief for Respondent 30–31. The problem with this argument is that it lacks any plausible textual footing in Article 10.²

If the drafters wished to limit Article 10(a) to a particular subset of documents, they presumably would have said so—as they did, for example, in Article 15, which refers to "a writ of summons or an equivalent document." Instead, Article 10(a) uses the term "judicial documents"—the same term that is featured in 10(b) and 10(c). Accordingly, the notion that Article 10(a) governs a different set of documents than 10(b) or 10(c) is hard to fathom. And it certainly derives no support from the use of the word "send," whose ordinary meaning is broad enough to cover the transmission of any judicial documents (including litigation-initiating documents). Nothing about the word "send" suggests that Article 10(a) is narrower than 10(b) and 10(c), let alone that Article 10(a) is somehow limited to "post-answer" documents.

Ultimately, Menon wishes to read the phrase "send judicial documents" as "serve a subset of judicial documents." That is an entirely atextual reading, and Menon offers no sustained argument in support of...