Before the Court en banc. Opinion by Justice Hardesty.
In this petition for writ of mandamus, the Court addressed whether a party residing outside of the United States whose foreign address is known may be served by publication pursuant to NRCP 4(e)(1)(i) and (iii), rather than pursuant to the terms of the Hague Service Convention. NRCP 4 permits service upon a defendant who resides outside the state by publishing the summons in a Nevada newspaper and mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the defendant’s residence, if it is known. The Hague Convention, on the other hand, mandates that a party in a foreign country be served either through the central authority of the receiving country, through diplomatic or consular agents that the receiving country considers non-objectionable, or by any method permitted by internal law of the receiving country. Under United States Supreme Court case law, the Hague Convention applies if the state’s service rules require “the transmittal of documents abroad” in order for service to be deemed complete. If the Hague Convention applies, its requirements preempt any inconsistent state law methods of service. Because Petitioners knew the foreign addresses of Real Parties in Interest, Petitioners were required to mail them the documents under NRCP 4(e)(1)(iii). The Court found that under the plain language of NRCP 4(e)(1)(iii), this act constitutes “the transmittal of documents abroad,” triggering the requirements of the Hague Convention. Consequently, the Court held, Petitioners were required to serve Real Parties in Interest pursuant to the requirements of the Hague Convention. Petition denied. (Jeff S. Riesenmy, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson.)
Congratulations to Matt Addison for his win for the real parties in interest!
