G:\BobX3\2011-12\Fraserside. set aside deafult ... - Letters Blogatory

Case 3:11-cv-03005-MWB Document 20 Filed 07/12/11 Page 12 of 20
under Article 10, local methods of service are unavailable to the parties. 5 Doe v. State of
Israel, 400 F. Supp. 2d 86, 103–04 (D.D.C. 2005). Cyprus, however, does not object to
Article 10. See Hague Conference on Private International Law, Cyprus, Central
Authority & practical information, http://
www.hcch.net/index—en.php?act=authorities.details & aid=50 (last visited July 7, 2011)
(website maintained by the Hague Conference on Private International Law states that
Cyprus has “[n[o] opposition” to Article 10); PRACTICING LAW INSTITUTE, Selected
Materials In Int’l Litig. and Arbitration, 704 PLI/Lit 559, 615 (2007) (text of Cyprus’s
Central Authority’s agreement to service under Article 10). Fraserside’s chosen process
to serve Youngtek, therefore, may have been consistent with the Hague Convention.
However, Youngtek objects to service on the ground that Tassos Kontos, the private
process server Fraserside used, was not authorized by the Cyprus Supreme Court to serve
process on it.
The burden of proving that process or service of process was insufficient lies with
Youngtek as the party challenging the sufficiency of the service. See S.E.C. v. Internet
Solutions for Business Inc., 509 F.3d 1161, 1163 (9th Cir. 2007); Burda Media, Inc. v.
Viertel, 417 F.3d 292, 299 (2d Cir. 2005); Bally Exp. Corp. v. Ballicar, Ltd., 804 F.2d
398, 404 (7th Cir. 1986). In support of its position, Youngtek points to a copy of an
email from Maria Pilikou, an associate in a Cypriot law firm, to Youngtek’s counsel in
which Pilikou reports “that according to Cyprus Civil Procedure Rules, a private process
server must be authorized by the Supreme Court of Cyprus to serve process.” See Pilikou
e-mail at 1 (docket no. 15-8). Pilikou, however, does not state any basis for her legal
5 Normally, the objection is made by the Central Authority of the foreign sovereign.
See Hague Convention at Art. 4.
12