## Facts

- Henry Heredia, a New York resident, alleged personal injuries from a January 20, 1999 motor-vehicle accident near the Throgs Neck Bridge in Bronx County involving a truck driven by Mercurio Presenza and associated with Transport S.A.S., Inc., both Canadian (Quebec) citizens.
- Heredia sued in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, by summons and complaint filed September 29, 1999.
- Under N.Y. Vehicle & Traffic Law § 253, Heredia served Presenza by delivering process to the New York Secretary of State’s designated agent and having the Secretary of State send notice and copies by registered mail to Presenza in Quebec.
- The summons and complaint mailed to Presenza were in English; the return receipt was bilingual (English/French).
- Presenza signed the registered-mail return receipt on October 14, 1999.
- Defendants filed a notice of removal to the Southern District of New York on December 16, 1999, asserting diversity jurisdiction.
- Heredia moved to remand on January 14, 2000, arguing removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
- Defendants argued the 30-day removal period never began because service was invalid under the Hague Service Convention and unconstitutional under due process.

## Issues

1. Whether the Hague Service Convention applied because the service method required transmission of documents to Canada to complete service.
2. Whether registered-mail service to Canada was permitted under the Hague Service Convention (including Article 10) and validly executed.
3. Whether the Hague Service Convention required the summons and complaint to be translated into French for service in Quebec.
4. Whether the service method satisfied due process notice requirements.
5. Whether Presenza’s October 14, 1999 receipt triggered the 30-day removal period under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), making the December 16, 1999 removal untimely.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to remand.
- The court held the Hague Service Convention applied because the governing New York statute required documents to be sent abroad to complete service.
- The court held service by registered mail to Canada was permitted under Article 10 because Canada had not objected to service through postal channels.
- The court held translation was not required for Article 10 postal service; translation requirements tied to Central Authority service under Article 5 did not control.
- The court held the service method satisfied due process because it was reasonably calculated to provide notice and Presenza in fact received the papers.
- The court held the 30-day removal clock began on October 14, 1999, and the December 16, 1999 notice of removal was untimely.

## Legal Principles

- The Hague Service Convention governs service when the forum’s service law requires transmission of judicial documents abroad to complete service.
- Article 10 permits service through postal channels when the destination state has not objected; registered mail may be used in that circumstance.
- Translation requirements under the Convention apply in the Central Authority process (Article 5) when required by the receiving state, but do not apply to Article 10 postal service.
- Due process is satisfied when notice is reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise the defendant of the action and allow an opportunity to respond; actual receipt supports sufficiency.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), the removal period runs from receipt of the initial pleading through valid service; removal outside the 30-day period is subject to remand.

## Conclusion

Because service on the Canadian defendant by registered mail complied with the Hague Service Convention and due process, the defendant’s October 14, 1999 receipt started the 30-day removal period; removal filed on December 16, 1999 was untimely, requiring remand to state court.


Heredia v. Transp. S.A.S., Inc., 101 F. Supp. 2d 158 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)