Conax Florida Corp. v. Astrium Ltd.

In 2001, British satellite company Astrium Ltd. (Astrium) (defendant) and Florida pyrovalve manufacturer Conax Florida Corp. (Conax) (plaintiff) entered into a subcontract providing for Astrium to purchase 406 pyrovalves in four batches. The subcontract provided that if the parties could not amicably settle any disputes arising out of their agreement, they would arbitrate the dispute in London. In June 2005, after Conax had already completed three batches of pyrovalves, testing on the fourth batch revealed cracks in the valves. Further investigation also found cracks in the earlier batches. The parties disputed the scope of Conax’s liability for the nonconforming pyrovalves and scheduled a mediation to be held in Florida on December 15, 2006. Unbeknownst to Astrium, Conax filed an action against Astrium in Florida state court on December 14, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the scope of its liability for the defective pyrovalves. The parties attended the mediation on December 15 but were unable to resolve the dispute. Right after the mediation concluded, a process server gave Astrium’s representative a copy of the Florida state-court summons and complaint. Conax also mailed three copies of process to the Florida Secretary of State and sent a notice of service and copy of the process to Astrium’s registered office in the United Kingdom and Astrium’s attorney in the United States, pursuant to Florida Statutes §§ 48.161 and 48.181. Astrium subsequently removed the Florida case to federal court and moved to quash service of process and dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Astrium conceded that it had received the summons and complaint through the mail. However, Astrium contended that service by mail was not authorized by the Hague Convention’s provisions on international service of judicial documents. Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention provided for the “freedom to send judicial documents” by mail if the country of destination had not objected, and the United Kingdom had not objected. Nevertheless, Astrium asserted that Article 10(a) was inapplicable because “judicial documents” did not include service of process itself and rather meant documents sent only after service of process had been effected. In the alternative, Astrium moved to stay the Florida proceedings and compel arbitration in London under the Federal Arbitration Act based on the subcontract’s arbitration provision. In ruling on Astrium’s motions, the district court considered the proper interpretation of Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention.