## Facts

- Tinicum Properties Associates (Tinicum) sued William Garnett to recover amounts allegedly owed under a lease agreement.
- The lease agreement was entered into in Pennsylvania, and Tinicum filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- When the lawsuit was filed, Garnett resided in Saudi Arabia.
- Saudi Arabia was not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.
- Tinicum attempted to serve Garnett in Saudi Arabia by mail, but did not obtain effective service.
- Tinicum also attempted service through Garnett’s attorney, without success.
- Tinicum sought help from the United States Embassy in Saudi Arabia, contacted Garnett’s employer, and worked with local Saudi Arabian attorneys and process servers, but still could not accomplish effective service.
- Although service had not been completed, Garnett sent a letter to Tinicum’s attorney indicating he was aware of Tinicum’s lawsuit.
- Tinicum moved for a court order specifying a special method of service intended to satisfy due process and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing service in a foreign country.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court could authorize a special, court-ordered method of service on a defendant residing in Saudi Arabia after repeated unsuccessful service attempts, where no Hague Convention procedures applied.
2. Whether the court-ordered method would be reasonably calculated to give notice and therefore satisfy due process and the requirements of the Federal Rules governing foreign service.

## Decision

- The court granted Tinicum’s motion and directed that Garnett be served by a special method set by the court.
- The court concluded that, given Saudi Arabia’s nonparticipation in the Hague Convention and Tinicum’s unsuccessful efforts using more conventional channels, a court-directed method of service was permitted under the federal rules for service in a foreign country.
- The court determined that the ordered method satisfied due process because it was reasonably calculated, in the circumstances presented, to provide Garnett notice of the action and an opportunity to respond, including in light of evidence that Garnett had actual awareness of the suit.

## Legal Principles

- Due process requires a method of service reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- When serving a defendant in a foreign country, the Federal Rules permit service by certain specified means and also permit service “as directed by order of the court,” so long as the method is not barred by an applicable international agreement.
- The absence of a governing service treaty (such as the Hague Convention) removes treaty-based limits that would otherwise control the permissible methods of service abroad.
- A plaintiff’s good-faith, unsuccessful attempts to effect service through ordinary methods may support an order authorizing an alternative method of service.
- Actual notice of the lawsuit does not, by itself, replace proper service, but it may support a finding that a proposed or ordered method is reasonably calculated to provide notice.

## Conclusion

Tinicum Properties Associates v. Garnett concerns a landlord’s effort to serve a tenant residing in Saudi Arabia, a non-Hague Convention country, after multiple failed attempts through mail, counsel, and other channels; the court granted Tinicum’s motion and ordered a special method of service consistent with the federal rules for foreign service and due process requirements for notice.


Tinicum Properties Associates v. Garnett, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6564 (1992)