Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, JURISDICTION—INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERICAL EQUIPMENT—E.D. Pa.: Hague Convention binds Turkish manufacturer to U.S. civil procedure rules, (Oct 23, 2025)

By Molly Platnick

Pennsylvania court was unpersuaded by the manufacturer’s claim that process servers are not recognized abroad.

The federal district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted an injured operator’s motion for remand in a case brought against a Turkish thermoforming machine manufacturer. The manufacturer removed the case based on diversity jurisdiction. The manufacturer claimed the operator did not properly deliver service of process because the Hague Convention requires service by an attorney or court official. The operator argued Hague Convention’s Article 3 expressly applies the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure abroad, permitting service by a process server and binding the foreign entities to the 30-day window to remove. The court agreed, citing case law and directions from the Department of Justice. The court concluded service was proper because the Hague Convention’s requirements for service were limited to the federal rule that service must be done by someone over 18 and not party to the case. Because the manufacturer was properly served and did not move to remove within 30-days, the case was remanded (Atanaciov. CEMAKS Industrial, No. 5:25cv-03910-JMG (E.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2025)).

Background. The plaintiff worked for a food and beverage container manufacturer in Eaton, Pennsylvania. The manufacturer used a thermoforming machine from a Turkish company to make its plastic containers. The machines were designed to stop production and trigger an alarm if extra plastic accumulated inside the machine, allowing an operator to clean the built-up plastic. The plaintiff was cleaning out the plastic when the machine suddenly reactivated, clamped down, and sealed his right hand in approximately 120-degree heat. The operator’s hand was stuck in the machine for two minutes, until his coworkers used a crowbar to pry off the clamp. He sustained painful injuries and lost full use of his hand, despite undergoing “extensive” medical treatment.

The operator’s wife joined this case as a plaintiff, alleging the container and thermoforming machine manufacturers were negligent. She states she has incurred expenses for her husband’s medical treatment and has suffered and will continue to suffer “the loss of the services, support and consortium of her spouse.”

Procedural history. On July 25, 2025, the thermoforming machine’s Turkish manufacturer removed the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania based on diversity jurisdiction. The manufacturer argued removal was timely because the opposing parties did not effect service of process in accordance with the Hague Convention. A private process server served the manufacturer with a copy of the Notice to Defend and the Complaint on April 18, 2025. The manufacturer alleged this was improper because the process server was not an authorized “forwarding authority” under the Hague Convention.

The operator and his wife filed the instant motion to remand the case to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. They contended removal was untimely because the manufacturer did not remove within the 30-day window required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

They raised four additional arguments why service was proper: (1) Article 3 of the Hague Convention expressly allows service in accordance with the FRCP outside of the Commonwealth; (2) the Turkish Ministry of Justice accepted the plaintiffs request, processed it, and issued an official “Hague Certificate…attesting that the documents were served on April 18, 2025; (3) a federal court in Texas has explicitly recognized the process server in this case as “a competent transmitting authority under Article 3;” and (4) the manufacturer’s “hypertechnical objection is directly at odds with the purpose of the Hague Convention.”

Hague requirements. The thermoforming machine manufacturer argued pursuant to Article 3, the United States only permits court officials, attorneys, and persons “authorized by the rules of the court” to serve process abroad. Here, an employee of a private process server served the manufacturer in Turkey.

The court rejected the manufacturer’s reading of Article 3. It cited a recent memo from the Department of Justice, which stated “additional persons and entities within the United States competent to transmit service requests abroad pursuant to Article 3 include any court official and any other person or entity, such as process servers.” The court also referenced the Southern District of California’s decision in the 2022 case Study Smarter LLC v. StudySmarter UG, which involved the same process server as the instant case. The California court held the process server could deliver process in Germany without a court order because she met the FRCP’s requirements; she was at least 18 years old and not a party to the matter. The process service was still, of course, over 18 and not a party to the operator’s case, so service was proper.

Turkey’s Hague service requirements. The thermoforming machine’s manufacturer claimed Turkey’s Hague Service procedures require service by an attorney or clerk of the court in the United States. The court rebuked this argument for the same reasons it found service as proper under the United States’ Hague requirements. The court noted Turkey and Germany have the same Hague service of process requirements and declined to “deviate from the precedent established in Study Smarter.”

Conclusion. The thermoforming machine manufacturer is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because service of process was proper under the United States and Turkey’s Hague Service requirements. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) requires parties to file for removal within 30 days of receiving a copy of the initial pleadings. The manufacture did not file for removal until 90 days after receiving the complaint and 65 days after being served. Thus, removal was untimely, and the court remanded the case to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.

The case is No. 5:25-cv-03910-JMG.

Judge: Gallagher, J.

Attorneys: Griffin Remick (Laffey, Bucci & Kent) for Gilberto Atanacio and Lourdes Castillo Valentin [H/W]. Daniel J. Hurteau (Nixon Peabody LLP) for CEMAKS Industrial, Inc.

Companies: CEMAKS Industrial, Inc.

Cases: CourtDecisions JurisdictionNews IndustrialCommercialEquipNews PennsylvaniaNews