Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Hayes v. Evergo Telephone Co.

North Carolina Court of Appeals · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureService of ProcessPersonal JurisdictionRelief from JudgmentHague ConventionArticle 10(a)Article 19international mail

Facts

Plaintiff served defendants in Hong Kong by sending the summons and complaint via registered mail, return receipt requested. Defendants argued that service was insufficient because plaintiff did not transmit the papers through Hong Kong's designated Central Authority under the Hague Convention. Evergo Trading also challenged personal jurisdiction, although evidence showed it sold ceiling fans to distributors such as Lowe's, K-Mart, and Montgomery Ward, had approximately $35 million in United States sales, placed no geographic limits on distribution, and carried insurance for sales and products throughout the United States. After being served, defendants contacted their insurer and a California attorney, but after the insurer denied coverage on 18 November 1988, they still did not retain North Carolina counsel or file an answer despite receiving further notice that plaintiff would seek default.

Issue

Whether service of process by registered international mail on defendants in Hong Kong was valid under the Hague Convention; whether North Carolina could exercise in personam jurisdiction over Evergo Trading; and whether defendants showed excusable neglect warranting relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(1).

Rule

Service of process via international mail conforms to the Hague Convention when the destination state has not objected to Article 10 and its internal law permits service by mail. A court may exercise in personam jurisdiction when North Carolina's long-arm statute authorizes jurisdiction and the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process, including whether the defendant could reasonably expect to be haled into court and whether jurisdiction accords with fair play and substantial justice. Excusable neglect is not shown when a defendant simply turns the matter over to its insurer and then fails to protect its interests after learning the insurer will not defend.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nora Bell filed a products action in North Carolina against Orion Harbor Ltd., a company based in Hong Kong. She sent the summons and complaint by registered mail, return receipt requested, and Orion Harbor admits it received the papers but argues service was invalid because Nora did not use Hong Kong's Hague Convention Central Authority.

How should the court rule on Orion Harbor's challenge to service?

Explanation. The majority held that service by international mail may comply with the Hague Convention where the destination state has not objected to Article 10 and its internal law permits service by mail. It expressly rejected the idea that Central Authority service was necessarily exclusive in those circumstances. Orion Harbor's admitted receipt reinforces the sufficiency of service. (Derived from Hayes v. Evergo Telephone Co. (n.d.).)