First Page
140
Abstract
This Note examines the use of alternative service on foreign defendants’ United States counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) and USCIT Rule 4(e)(3). A recent challenge in the Court of International Trade has raised the issue of whether this method of service complies with the rule that service be effectuated in a foreign country. Through surveying federal courts decisions addressing motions for alternative service on U.S. counsel, this note demonstrates that courts do not apply a uniform rule. Instead, courts balance different considerations—like due process, international comity, and litigants’ behavior—based on the underlying facts. This Note synthesizes the relevant case law and argues that motions for alternative service on U.S. counsel should be governed by standards rather than rigid rules. Given the inherently international, procedural, and equitable considerations presented, a standards-based approach better accommodates competing interests and preserves procedural fairness. Ultimately, this note provides a coherent doctrinal framework for evaluating service on a foreign defendant’s U.S. counsel and explains why variation in outcomes is an expected—and appropriate—feature of the doctrine.
Recommended Citation
Lucy Gottfried,
United States Counsel Being Used in Order to Serve Foreign Entities: Service on Foreign Entities and the Relationship Between US Counsel and Foreign Companies,
51 Brook. J. Int'l L.
140
(2025).
Available at:
https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol51/iss1/4