## Facts

- The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters sets procedures for serving process internationally.
- Article 10(a) states that, if the destination country does not object, the Convention does not interfere with the freedom to “send” judicial documents by postal channels directly to persons abroad.
- Japan did not object to Article 10(a).
- Charles Bankston, Sr. (as administrator of his son’s estate) and Regina Dixon sued Toyota Motor Corporation, a Japanese corporation, in federal court for damages arising from a vehicle accident.
- Plaintiffs’ initial attempt to serve Toyota did not comply with the Hague Convention, prompting Toyota to move to dismiss for insufficient service.
- The district court denied dismissal at that time but granted plaintiffs 45 days to serve Toyota in a manner consistent with the Hague Convention.
- Plaintiffs then mailed the summons and complaint by registered mail, return receipt requested, directly to Toyota in Tokyo; the documents were in English and were not translated into Japanese.
- Toyota signed and returned the receipt and renewed its motion to dismiss, arguing service still failed under the Convention.
- The district court ruled that Article 10(a) does not authorize service of process by registered mail on a Japanese corporation and granted plaintiffs an additional 60 days to complete service through Hague Convention procedures.
- The district court certified the question for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), and the court of appeals allowed the appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention authorizes service of process by registered mail on a defendant in Japan when Japan has not objected to Article 10(a).

## Decision

- The court held that Article 10(a) does not authorize service of process by mail; the term “send” in Article 10(a) is not the same as “serve.”
- Because plaintiffs’ registered-mail mailing to Toyota in Japan was not valid service of process under the Convention, the district court correctly required plaintiffs to use Convention-approved service methods.
- The court affirmed the district court’s order and left in place the additional time granted to complete proper service.

## Legal Principles

- When the Hague Service Convention applies, service abroad must be accomplished through methods the Convention permits; attempts that do not fit the Convention are ineffective.
- Article 10(a)’s reference to the freedom to “send” judicial documents by postal channels does not itself create a method for “service of process,” particularly where the Convention elsewhere uses the specific term “service.”
- Treaty interpretation begins with the text and structure of the treaty; different words used in nearby provisions are presumed to have different meanings.
- The Convention’s central-authority framework reflects a preference for formal, standardized channels for initiating service abroad; reading Article 10(a) as authorizing service by mail would conflict with that framework.
- A destination state’s failure to object to Article 10(a) means postal transmission of judicial documents is not barred by the Convention, but it does not convert postal “sending” into valid service of process.

## Conclusion

In Bankston v. Toyota Motor Corp., the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that plaintiffs could not serve Toyota Motor Corporation in Japan by registered mail under Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention because Article 10(a) permits “sending” documents by post but does not authorize service of process; plaintiffs therefore had to complete service through Convention-approved procedures.


Bankston v. Toyota Motor Corp., 889 F.2d 172 (1989)