Service of Summons

Judicial Council Comment re CCP 413.10.

Superseded CCP Sections: §§ 410, 411, 412, 413, 417.
Section 413.10 governs service of process within and outside this state, with one exception: special methods for effectuating service that are authorized by other statutes of this state may be used in appropriate instances. For a comprehensive list of these statutes, see Horowitz, Bases of Jurisdiction of California Courts to Render Judgments Against Foreign Corporations and Non–Resident Individuals (1958) 31 So Cal L Rev 339, 347, 356–358.

Service of process is the means by which a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter asserts its jurisdiction over the party and brings home to him reasonable notice of the action. (See, e.g., United Office and Professional Workers etc. v. Smiley (DC Pa 1946) 75 F Supp 695; Sechrist v. Palshook (DC Pa 1951) 97 F Supp 505.) Generally speaking, the methods enumerated under Article 3 of this chapter may be used within or outside this state to effectuate service upon corporate and noncorporate entities and individuals. Subdivision (b) provides an alternative method for effectuating service outside this state but within the United States, namely, in the manner prescribed by the law of the place where the defendant is served.

Subdivision (c) provides still other alternative methods of service, which are limited to service within the borders of a foreign country. These include service in the manner prescribed by the law of the place where the defendant is served or in the manner directed by a foreign authority in response to a letter rogatory. To insure that due process requirements are met when service is made by these methods, however, the California court in which the action is pending must find, before or after service, that the foreign method of service is reasonably calculated to give actual notice (Cf. Uniform Interstate and International Procedure Act § 2.01, subd. (a); see generally Milliken v. Meyer (1940) 311 US 457, 61 S Ct 339, 85 L Ed 278, 132 ALR 1357.) If the court finds that such methods are constitutionally defective, it may impose such additional requirements as would make such service acceptable. (Subdivision (c).)

By authorizing a series of alternative methods of service, Section 413.10 permits accommodation to the policies and procedures of sister states and foreign countries. Careful study of foreign law may show that service would less likely be objected to, or could be more easily made, if effected in a manner prescribed by foreign law or by a foreign authority in response to a letter rogatory. (See generally Smit and Miller, International Co–operation in Civil Litigation—A Report on Practices and Procedures Prevailing in the United States (Milan 1961) 40–48; Smit, International Aspects of Federal Civil Procedure (1961) 61 Colum. L. Rev. 1031, 1040–43; Note, 49 Am. J. Int’l L. 379 (1955).) Since a number of foreign countries recognize foreign judgments only if they are based upon service made in accordance with their laws, the flexible provisions of Section 413.10 would permit service to be effected in accordance with such laws. (See generally Jones, International Judicial Assistance: Procedural Chaos and a Program for Reform (1953) 62 Yale LJ 515, 537; Smit, supra, at 1041–42; Inter–American Judicial Committee, Report on Uniformity of Legislation on International Cooperation in Judicial Procedures (1952) 30.)
Proof of service is governed by Sections 417.10 through 417.30.

Comparable CCP Section: § 187.

The various methods of service and methods for making proof of service specified in this chapter have one common characteristic: They are established in advance for general use in all cases. Section 413.30 recognizes a different but highly important power that permits the California court in which an action is pending to devise or recognize a special procedure for effectuating service of process or making proof of service in that action in cases of necessity. In the absence of a statutory procedure for effecting service of process or making proof of service in a pending action or where the specified procedure cannot wholly or in part be followed, the court may devise the necessary procedure for use either in effecting service of process or in making proof of service in that action. (See People v. Jordan (1884) 65 Cal 644, 646, 4 P 682.) Such procedure must be designed, whenever possible, to give actual notice to the party to be served, so as to satisfy the federal due process requirements. ( Milliken v. Meyer (1940) 311 US 457, 463, 61 S Ct 339, 85 L Ed 278, 132 ALR 1357.) [S.J., June 18, 1969.]

Cases

• In a patent suit in California, a plaintiff can get personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation if his service meets the test of either federal law, 28 USCS § 1694, or California law, former CCP § 411, former Corp C §§  6500 et seq. Bobrick Corp. v. American Dispenser Co. (9th Cir. Cal. Apr. 14, 1967), 377 F.2d 334.
  
  
• California Supreme Court has equated the statutory requirement for personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation under former CCP § 411 and former Corp C §§ 6500 et seq. – that the corporation must be “doing business in” California – with the International Shoe concept of minimum contacts. Bobrick Corp. v. American Dispenser Co. (9th Cir. Cal. Apr. 14, 1967), 377 F.2d 334.
  
  
• The rule that a nonresident witness, while in attendance in connection with the conduct of one suit, is immune from service of process in another, extends no rights to the nonresident witness, but exists for the convenience and benefit of the court alone. It applies only where the nonresident witness voluntarily enters the territorial jurisdiction of the judicial proceedings, and such witness immunity privilege should not be enlarged beyond the reason upon which it was founded and should be extended or withheld only as judicial necessities require. Severn v. Adidas Sportschuhfabriken (Cal. App. 1st Dist. Aug. 1, 1973), 33 Cal. App. 3d 754, 109 Cal. Rptr. 328.
  
  
• The trial court erred in quashing service of process made in Florida on defendant resident of France on behalf of himself and defendant European corporations, even though the individual served was in Florida for the sole purpose of giving his deposition in federal court litigation initiated by one of the corporations, where the individual was a person authorized under CCP § 416.10, to receive service of process on behalf of the corporations, and where the court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action. In view of CCP §§ 410.10, 413.10, 415.10, authorizing service of process under such circumstances within the state, outside the state but within the United States, and outside the United States, the reasons for the rule granting nonresident witnesses immunity from service of process have disappeared, and, under like reasoning, neither the federal courts nor Florida could have any legitimate interest in applying the immunity rule. Severn v. Adidas Sportschuhfabriken (Cal. App. 1st Dist. Aug. 1, 1973), 33 Cal. App. 3d 754, 109 Cal. Rptr. 328.
  
  
• Service through the Hague Service Convention (a multilateral treaty formulated in 1964 by the Tenth Session of the Hague Conference of Private International Law) provides the exclusive means of service on a Canadian national if there is occasion to transmit judicial or extrajudicial documents abroad. In California, service on an individual may be made by personal delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint (CCP § 415.10), substituted service by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with a competent person at the individual’s business, office, dwelling, usual place of abode or usual mailing address (CCP § 415.20.), sending summons by first class mail with return receipt requested, or coupled with an acknowledgment and return envelope with postage prepaid (CCP §§ 415.30, 415.40), serving summons by publication where, upon application, it appears the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence be served in another manner (CCP § 415.50(a)), or, if the party’s address is ascertained before expiration of the time prescribed for publication of the summons, by mailing copies of the complaint, summons and order for publication to the person (CCP § 415.50 (b)). With one possible exception, each of these methods would require transmission of documents abroad and, under CCP § 413.10, are therefore subject to the Hague Service Convention. Kott v. Superior Court (Cal. App. 2d Dist. May 23, 1996), 45 Cal. App. 4th 1126, 53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 215.
  
  
• By not serving a summons, plaintiffs failed to take the steps required to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendants in order to enforce a French judgment. Former CCP § 1713.3 requires that foreign country money judgments be enforced by bringing an action, and as in other actions, a summons must be served to obtain personal jurisdiction over a defendant, CCP § 410.50(a). Renoir v. Redstar Corp. (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Nov. 3, 2004), 123 Cal. App. 4th 1145, 20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 603.
  
  
• Service on a Japanese corporation through its American subsidiary’s agent for service of process did not implicate the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, 658 U.N.T.S. 163, because California law does not require service abroad but allows service pursuant to CCP § 416.10 and Corp C § 2110 on a foreign corporation’s California general manager, which can be a sales agent in regular contact; moreover, although CCP § 413.10 recognizes that the Convention governs over conflicting state law, it does not require all service on foreign nationals to be made pursuant to the Convention. Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court (Cal. App. 4th Dist. May 26, 2009), 174 Cal. App. 4th 264, 94 Cal. Rptr. 3d 494.
  
  
• Although mail delivery of a petition to declare a father’s children free from his custody and control and the citation to appear to the prison in Mexico where the father was incarcerated, rather than service through the Mexican Central Authority, failed to comply with the service requirements of the Hague Service Convention, the father made a general appearance through his counsel at the hearing on the petition and thus consented to the family law court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over him. In re Vanessa Q. (Cal. App. 2d Dist. July 14, 2010), 187 Cal. App. 4th 128, 114 Cal. Rptr. 3d 294.
  
  
• Service was properly quashed under CCP §§ 410.50, 413.10(c) because a tenant failed to comply with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, when she served her landlord at his mother’s address, knowing that he was abroad, and without inquiring as to his whereabouts. The landlord’s mother was not served under CCP § 416.90 as an ostensible agent for service of process; evidence that she received rent checks was insufficient to establish ostensible authority under CC § 2317; substituted residential service under CCP § 415.20(b) was not valid absent a good faith, reasonable effort at personal service. Lebel v. Mai (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Nov. 6, 2012), 210 Cal. App. 4th 1154, 148 Cal. Rptr. 3d 893.
  
  
• Colombian corporations were not properly served under the Hague Convention on Service Abroad because this section provides no affirmative authorization for service by mail and delivery by a private courier without return receipts did not comply with other California statutes governing service by mail. Inversiones Papaluchi S.A.S. v. Superior Court (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Feb. 14, 2018), 229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 701, 20 Cal. App. 5th 1055.
  
  
• Fraudulent transfer claimants were permitted to use an agent to serve a corporation personally in Hong Kong without first making a central authority request because Hong Kong’s declaration on service through agents under the Hague Service Convention is not an objection and does not encompass private parties; consequently, service was proper and the trial court correctly denied the corporation’s motion to quash. Whyenlee Industries Ltd. v. Superior Court (Cal. App. 1st Dist. Mar. 22, 2019), 244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 840, 33 Cal. App. 5th 364.