Service upon (1) an individual from whom a waiver has not been obtained and filed, other than an infant or an incompetent person, (2) a corporation, or (3) a partnership or other unincorporated association (including a limited liability company) may be effected in a place not within any judicial district of the United States:
Rule 4A.Service Upon Defendant in a Foreign Country
Last amended July 1, 1997 · Last verified July 2, 2026
In one sentenceRule 4A tells a plaintiff how to serve an individual, corporation, or unincorporated association in a foreign country — starting with any internationally agreed means such as the Hague Service Convention, and falling back on the foreign country’s own procedure, a letter rogatory, personal delivery, mail with a signed receipt, or a method the court directs.
Full Text of Rule 4A
1 by any internationally agreed means reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those means authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents; or
2 if there is no internationally agreed means of service or the applicable international agreement allows other means of service, provided that service is reasonably calculated to give notice:
A in the manner prescribed by the law of the foreign country for service in that country in an action in any of its courts of general jurisdiction; or
B as directed by the foreign authority in response to a letter rogatory or letter of request; or
C unless prohibited by the law of the foreign country, by
i delivery to the individual personally of a copy of the summons and the complaint; or
ii any form of mail requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the party to be served; or
3 in the case of a corporation, by service as provided in 4.04 (4) upon any corporation that has acted as the corporate defendant's agent in relation to the matter that is the subject of the litigation or the stock of which is wholly owned by the corporate defendant.
4 by other means not prohibited by international agreement as may be directed by the court.
Advisory Commission Comments
Amendment History
- Effective July 1, 1997.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 4A applies once a defendant — an individual who has not waived service, a corporation, or a partnership or other unincorporated association — is located somewhere outside any federal judicial district, meaning outside the United States. Its first instruction is to use whatever internationally agreed means applies, chiefly the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents, a multilateral treaty the United States joined in 1969 and whose importance has grown as international litigation has become more common.
When no such agreement governs, or the agreement that does apply allows other means, Rule 4A opens several alternatives, all subject to the requirement that the method chosen be reasonably calculated to give notice: service under the procedure the foreign country itself uses for actions in its own courts of general jurisdiction; service as directed by the foreign authority in response to a letter rogatory or letter of request; personal delivery of the summons and complaint, unless the foreign country’s law forbids it; or mail requiring a signed receipt, sent by the clerk. A corporation may also be served through a domestic corporation that has acted as its agent in the matter or that it wholly owns, letting a plaintiff serve a foreign parent company by serving its American subsidiary. Finally, the court may direct any other method not prohibited by an international agreement.
Because a ratified treaty overrides conflicting state procedure under the Supremacy Clause, a plaintiff who serves a foreign defendant without checking whether a governing treaty applies risks having that service invalidated no matter how closely Rule 4A itself was followed. Whether a particular treaty permits a particular method, such as service by mail, can also turn on how the destination country has responded to that treaty, so identifying the correct international agreement is often the harder half of the job.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the Hague Service Convention override Rule 4A?
Where it applies, yes. Rule 4A directs a plaintiff to use an internationally agreed means first, and treaty provisions like the Hague Convention take precedence over conflicting state procedure under the Supremacy Clause.
Can a foreign corporation be served through its U.S. subsidiary?
Yes, in some circumstances. Rule 4A(3) allows service on a corporation through another corporation that has acted as its agent in the matter at issue or whose stock it wholly owns, which can let a plaintiff serve a domestic subsidiary instead of reaching across an international border.
Is service by mail always allowed on a defendant in a foreign country?
Not always. Rule 4A permits mail requiring a signed receipt when no better method applies, but whether a particular country’s treaty obligations permit service by direct mail is a question that has generated real disagreement among courts and can depend on the destination country.
Source & verification. The rule text and Advisory Commission Comments are reproduced verbatim from the
official Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure (Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4A). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Tennessee (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 16-3-402 to 16-3-407, 16-3-601). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 2, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: service in a foreign countryhague convention serviceinternational service of process
Advisory Commission Comments.
Rule 4A, which is captioned "Service Upon Defendant in a Foreign Country," is an entirely new rule. The Rule is based, with substantial revisions, on the current Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f), but omits the phrase "Unless otherwise provided by federal law" from the first sentence. The bracketed parts have also been added to make clear that this provision is applicable to business associations as well as to individuals.
Litigation in the United States increasingly includes international elements and often foreign defendants, and certain treaties have important implications for civil litigation in American courts. For example, the multilateral international convention, "Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents," often referred to as the Hague Service Convention, became effective in the United States on February 10, 1969. Kadota v. Hosogai, 608 P.2d 68, 71 (Ariz. App. 1980). Its importance has increased dramatically in recent years as a consequence of both the increase in international trade and the addition of signatories to the convention.
Litigants are obliged to consider the possible impact of international treaties upon litigation. Reliance solely upon the specific provisions of Tennessee law may result in service of process being invalidated by treaties such as the Hague Service Convention. Wilson v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 776 F. Supp. 339, 342, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15397 (E.D. Tenn. 1991). Under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, treaty provisions for service abroad prevail over contrary state law, Kadota v. Hosogai, 608 P.2d 68, 71 (Ariz. App. 1980), and are thus controlling even in the absence of recognition by state rule. Rule 4A, however, reminds the lawyer to consider overriding treaties and also provides for alternative means of service.
Moreover, applicable treaties may actually expand the service options in some cases. See, e.g., Semet, Lickstein, Morgenstern, Berger, Friend, Brooke & Gordon, P.A. v. Sawada, 643 So.2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. App. 1994) (under the Supremacy Clause, service upon defendant in compliance with Hague Service Convention is valid service of process). Subpart 4A(3) provides specific direction to the courts on a question that has not yet been addressed by Tennessee law. The provision establishes that a subsidiary corporation that is simply the alter ego of a foreign corporation may be the agent for service of process under appropriate circumstances. Given the hostility to litigation in American courts that may be found in some foreign countries, such a provision will allow an attorney in some cases to avoid the expense and inconvenience of having to attempt service in a foreign country.
Compliance with the Hague Service Convention, for example, is required only when service on the defendant is in a signatory country outside of the United States. If the defendant has an agent for service of process in the United States, service upon that corporation may be in accordance with state law. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 707 (1988). If service of process on a domestic agent, therefore, is proper under both state law and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, the Hague Service Convention does not apply.
Whether there has been compliance with the Hague Service Convention may in itself present tricky problems of interpretation. For example, a substantial body of authority has developed on both sides of the question of whether Japan permits service of process by mail. See Pennebaker v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., 155 F.R.D. 153, 154, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5837 (S.D. Miss. 1994); McClenon v. Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A., 726 F. Supp. 822, 825, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15072 (N.D. Fla. 1989).
For additional cases illustrating the importance of compliance with international treaties, see Ackermann v. Levine, 788 F.2d 830 (CA2 1986); Bankston v. Toyota Motor Corp., 123 F.R.D. 595 (W.D. Ark. 1989), aff'd, remanded, Bankston v. Toyota Motor Corp., 889 F.2d 172 (CA8 1989); Harris v. Browning-Ferris Industries Chemical Services, Inc., 100 F.R.D. 775 (M.D. La. 1984); Lyman Steel Corp. v. Ferrostaal Metals Corp., 747 F. Supp. 389 (N.D. Ohio 1990); Raffa v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., 141 F.R.D. 45 (E.D. Pa. 1991); Honda Motor Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara, 10 Cal. App. 4th 1043, 12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 861 (6th Dist. 1992).