Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

Serving Defendants in the 21st Century

2/24/2017

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Habib Olapade
Habib Olapade is a first-year law student at Yale University.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure often lag behind technological developments. This gap is particularly acute in the case of Rule 4, which, among other things, regulates how plaintiffs may serve domestic and international defendants with orders to appear before a federal court. [1]


Under Rule 4, domestic parties may only be served in person, through an individual living in their housing unit, or through an agent. Foreign parties, on the other hand, may be served in any manner that complies with constitutional due process requirements and other requirements in Rule 4. Under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, notice must be “reasonably calculated, under all circumstances to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” [2] In practice, this fuzzy standard has been interpreted to include service of process via physical delivery, letters rogatory, repeatedly published notices in newspapers, telex, email, and Twitter posts. Private Facebook messages (not public wall posts) have been authorized by a few district courts, but only as a supplemental mode of delivery. [3]
Generally, Rule 4 only allows electronic process delivery in cases involving foreign defendants. Moreover, electronic process may be used only if the defendant’s whereabouts are unknown and other delivery methods are insufficient. For example, plaintiffs of modest means may be unable to physically travel to a foreign country to personally serve the defendant, take out multiple ads in a prominent foreign newspaper, or hire a competent professional process server. In these cases, service via Twitter or Facebook may be the most convenient and efficient option.

Indeed, a few months ago, a United States District Court in San Francisco authorized such an approach in a case involving Kuveyt-Turk Participation Bank, a Kuwaiti firm accused of illicitly financing ISIL attacks against Assyrian Christians in Iraq. [4] Kuveyt-Turk could not be served through traditional means. The bank, though, maintained a publicly-accessible Twitter account to fundraise for terrorist operations. Because the Twitter profile was active, could be traced to Kuveyt-Turk, and there was a reasonable chance that the account owner would receive the process notice, a federal district judge allowed the suit to move forward.  

It is clear, however, that these three premises should also lead one to conclude that electronic process through email should be available in cases involving domestic defendants. One can easily conceive of situations where a domestic plaintiff may also be unable to track down a domestic defendant and commission professionals to help her. In 2011, for instance, Jessica Mpafe, a Minnesota citizen, finally decided that she wanted to divorce her absentee husband of ten years. Mpafe filed divorce papers in state court, but Minnesota officials were unable to give notice to Jessica’s husband because he was at an undisclosed location in the United States. [5]

Conventional process delivery would have been impractical because Jessica could not afford a round-trip domestic airline ticket nor mail process papers without a destination address. Fortunately, the state judge in Jessica’s case was able to order service of process via Facebook because Minnesota courts are not bound by Federal Civil Procedure Rules. Most litigants in federal courts, though, do not have the same luxury, despite the fact that there is no rational reason for the discrepancy.  

Skeptics might respond in one of three ways. First, email process delivery may not satisfy constitutional notice requirements because electronic messages may never be opened or may be unwittingly thrown into a user’s junk file.  

Second, users can create unauthentic Facebook and Twitter profiles in order to masquerade as someone they are not. If nothing else, the constitution requires that process must be served on the correct party. Admittedly, it can be difficult to pick out the right attendee when everyone in the reception hall is wearing a mask.
​
Finally, one might question the assumption that email process delivery provides more benefits than drawbacks to the poor. Many low income citizens lack email addresses and home computers. Others are limited in English proficiency. Everything being equal, a policy that harms those it is intended to benefit cannot command assent.

There are three responses to these claims. One must first consider that fact that plaintiffs can now access affordable software applications such as SpyPig, which allow them to track when a sent email is opened by the recipient. [6] If the email has been opened, the constitution’s notice requirements have been meet. If not, other means must be resorted to.

The social media anonymity problem can be mitigated by confining social media process delivery to a supplementary role reinforcing email delivery. Furthermore, social media delivery would only be ordered in cases where indicia on the profile page such as the listed email address make it more likely than not that the profile is authentic.

Furthermore, courts could tailor Rule 4 electronic process orders to accommodate poor litigants in need of a bilingual summons or delivery in a more accessible technological form such as cell phone text messages.

It is ridiculous to have no better reason for a procedural rule than the fact that it was laid down in an era of horses and buggies. Rule 4 was drafted at a time when typewriters and telephones were cutting edge technology. Times have changed and so must some of the procedural rules that our federal courts follow. Anything less would allow history’s dead hand to receive more than it is due.    

[1] “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Four: Summons,” Cornell University Law School,
accessed February 22, 2016, https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_4.

[2] Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Corporation, 339 U.S. 306 (1950).

[3] “Facebook Notification,” American Bar Association Law Practice Today, accessed
February 22, 2016, http://www.lawpracticetoday.org/article/facebook-notification- youve-
been-served/.

[4] Saint Francis Assisi v. Kuwait Finance House, 3:16-cv- 3240-LB (order granting
motion to serve process by alternative means).

[5] “A Pleasure to Serve You,” American Bar Association Journal, accessed February
22, 2016.

[6] Ronald J. Hedges, Kenneth N. Rashbaum, and Adam Losey, “Electronic Service of
Process at home and Abroad: Allowed Domestic Electronic Service of Process in the
Federal Courts,” The Federal Courts Law Review (Volume 4, Issue 1).


Photo Credit Flickr User:
SalFalko
​

The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.

0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Ella Sohn
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​