Service of Process in Arbitration Enforcement Actions( continued from page 11)
In 2021, the Western District of North Carolina denied a motion to dismiss under FRCP Rule 12( b)( 5) for insufficient service of process where the plaintiff failed to effect Hague Convention service on an international defendant. 1 The Court held that service by e-mail and mail was sufficient for two reasons. First, the FAA provides that actual notice is sufficient when, during the underlying arbitration, the defendant consented to personal jurisdiction in the enforcing court. Second, the arbitration rules governing the underlying arbitration allowed for service of an action to confirm an arbitration award to be made by mail and e-mail. This case highlights the importance of paying close attention to the service requirements set forth in the underlying arbitration rules.
The TVL International arbitration was governed by the American Arbitration Association(“ AAA”) Commercial Rules, including Rule 43( a), which provided that:
Any papers, notices, or process necessary or proper for the initiation or continuation of an arbitration under these rules, for any court action in connection therewith, or for the entry of judgment on any award made under these rules may be served on a party by mail addressed to the party or its representative at the last known address or by personal service, in or outside the state where the arbitration is to be held [.]
More common in maritime disputes, however, are arbitrations under the Society of Maritime Arbitrators(“ SMA”) or the Houston Maritime Arbitrators Association(“ HMAA”). Like the AAA Rule 43( a), Rule 35 of the SMA Maritime Arbitration Rules provides that:
Wherever parties have agreed to arbitration under these Rules, they shall be deemed to have consented to service of any papers, notices or process necessary to initiate or continue an arbitration under these Rules or a court action to confirm judgment on the Award issued. Such documents may be served:( a) by mail, including email,... or( b) by personal service.
In contrast to AAA and SMA, the HMAA rules do not speak to service of enforcement actions, leaving parties to rely only on Federal Rule 4 and the FAA.
service of arbitration documents and notices but also petitions to recognize and enforce or confirm an award in court, ensuring that all procedural steps are governed by the agreed-upon methods. This modernized approach— validating e-mail service— aligns with contemporary communication practices and significantly reduces ambiguity and the risk of procedural objections.
By reducing procedural hurdles relating to service, SMA Rule 35 enhances both the enforceability of SMA awards and the efficiency of converting those awards into binding court judgments. That makes including or incorporating a specific service provision an especially prudent and commercially sound choice in arbitration clauses, providing parties with predictability and confidence in enforcement proceedings. p – 2025 BLANK ROME LLP
As a result, the inclusion of an SMA arbitration clause with SMA Rule 35’ s explicit authorization of service by mail— including by e-mail— provides critical clarity on what constitutes valid service in arbitration-related court proceedings. Importantly, Rule 35 covers not only the
MAINBRACE • 12