## Facts

- Peggy Armenta sued Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation, in California for injuries allegedly caused by an all-terrain vehicle’s defective design or manufacture.
- Armenta attempted to serve Suzuki in Japan by sending the summons and complaint by registered mail directly to Suzuki’s headquarters.
- Armenta relied on California service-by-mail provisions and Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention, which states that the Convention shall not interfere with the freedom to “send” judicial documents by postal channels unless the receiving state objects.
- Japan is a signatory to the Hague Service Convention and formally objected to Articles 10(b) and 10(c), but did not file an express objection to Article 10(a).
- Suzuki received the mailed documents but moved to quash service, arguing the method did not comply with (1) California statutes for serving a foreign corporation and (2) the Hague Service Convention, which preempts inconsistent state procedures when service must be transmitted abroad.
- The trial court denied the motion to quash; Suzuki sought writ relief directing the trial court to grant the motion.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention permits formal service of process on a Japanese defendant by registered mail sent directly from California, given Japan’s objections to Articles 10(b) and 10(c) and Japanese practice requiring service through court officials.
2. Whether California service-by-mail provisions can be used to serve a defendant in Japan when the Hague Service Convention applies and provides the governing procedures.
3. Whether actual receipt of the documents cures noncompliance with treaty-based service requirements.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted Suzuki’s petition for writ relief.
- The court held that Armenta’s registered-mail attempt did not effect valid service under the Hague Service Convention or California law.
- The court directed the superior court to vacate its order denying the motion to quash and to enter a new order granting the motion to quash service of summons.

## Legal Principles

- When judicial documents must be transmitted abroad to effect service, the Hague Service Convention applies and, under the Supremacy Clause, preempts inconsistent state service methods.
- Article 10(a)’s reference to the freedom to “send” judicial documents by postal channels does not necessarily authorize formal service of process by mail; “sending” is distinct from “serving” summons initiating suit.
- A court may interpret Article 10(a) in light of the receiving state’s legal system and treaty practice; where the receiving state does not recognize service by mail as valid service of process, mail service may be ineffective even absent an express Article 10(a) objection.
- Actual notice or actual receipt does not substitute for valid service when a treaty prescribes specific service procedures.
- Even apart from treaty requirements, a plaintiff must strictly comply with applicable state statutory procedures for serving a foreign corporation; defective compliance provides an additional basis to quash service.

## Conclusion

The court required treaty-compliant international service on a Japanese defendant and rejected registered mail as a method of formal service, holding that the Hague Service Convention controlled and that actual receipt did not cure defective service.


Suzuki Motor Co. v. Superior Court, 200 Cal. App. 3d 1476 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)