## Facts

- A Florida law firm represented Nabuo Sawada, a Japanese national, in multiple legal matters.
- Sawada allegedly failed to pay for the legal services, and the firm sued for fees in Florida state court.
- Because Sawada was abroad, the firm attempted service in Japan under the Hague Service Convention.
- The firm translated the summons and complaint into Japanese and submitted the documents for service through Japan’s designated Central Authority (a Japanese District Court).
- The Central Authority directed the Japanese Postal Authority to deliver the documents to Sawada’s former business address.
- Pursuant to Sawada’s prior instructions to the Postal Authority, the documents were forwarded to Sawada’s father’s address.
- The Postal Authority completed a return of service, which was translated and returned to the firm.
- Sawada entered a special appearance to challenge service, asserting by affidavit that he had not resided in Japan for the preceding three months, without stating his current residence.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint for insufficient service of process.

## Issues

1. Whether service carried out and certified through Japan’s Central Authority under the Hague Service Convention satisfied Florida service requirements.
2. Whether a Florida court may impose additional state-law conditions to invalidate service that was completed and certified under Article 6 of the Hague Service Convention.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the dismissal.
- Service was valid because it was effected in compliance with the Hague Service Convention and certified by Japan’s Central Authority process.
- Florida courts could not invalidate Hague-compliant service by imposing additional requirements inconsistent with the treaty.
- Sawada’s affidavit assertion of non-residency did not rebut the Convention-compliant return of service, particularly where he did not disclose his current location and did not challenge the method’s legality under Japanese law.

## Legal Principles

- When service is performed and certified by a signatory state’s Central Authority in accordance with Article 6 of the Hague Service Convention, domestic courts may not add extra requirements to deem service insufficient.
- As a ratified treaty, the Hague Service Convention preempts conflicting state service-of-process rules under the Supremacy Clause.
- A defendant’s unsupported assertions about residence, without evidence contradicting the Article 6 certification, generally do not defeat Convention-compliant service.

## Conclusion

The court held that Hague Service Convention service completed and certified through Japan’s designated authorities was sufficient, and Florida courts could not impose additional state-law hurdles to invalidate that service; the dismissal for insufficient service was reversed.


Semet Lickstein Morgenstern Berger Friend Brooke & Gordon, P.A. v. Sawada, 643 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)