Sebastian Holdings, Inc. v. Johansson.
2025 COA 60. No. 24CA1175. Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure—Substituted Service—Due Diligence—Reasonably Calculated to Give Actual Notice—Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.
June 18, 2025
Sebastian Holdings, Inc. is a Turks and Caicos company and a plaintiff in this matter. The High Court of Justice of England and Wales resolved the dispute underlying this case in 2013 by, as relevant here, ordering Sebastian Holdings to pay Deutsche Bank over $243 million, plus interest. Deutsche Bank recovered over $62 million by executing on shares owned by Sebastian Holdings in a Norwegian company. In 2021, the Turks and Caicos Supreme Court appointed the other plaintiffs in this matter as joint receivers of Sebastian Holdings to marshal its assets, including its unliquidated claims. The receivers then brought claims in Turks and Caicos against a group of defendants related to Sebastian Holdings, including Johansson. The receivers were unable to serve process on Johannson but ultimately uncovered numerous facts that they believed reflected ongoing connections between Johansson and an Aspen residence. They then filed suit in the Pitkin County District Court seeking permission for substituted service of process on Johansson. The district court authorized substituted service on Johannson under the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361 (the Hague Service Convention). Johansson later appeared through counsel, contested the service of process, and moved to quash the substituted service. The court denied the motion.
On appeal, Johansson argued that, because he is a nonresident defendant, the district court was required to have personal jurisdiction over him to authorize substituted service of process. However, because personal service is one step in obtaining personal jurisdiction over a defendant, personal jurisdiction cannot be a prerequisite to service of process. Accordingly, the district court did not need personal jurisdiction over Johansson before it could authorize substituted service of process.
Johansson also asserted that the Hague Service Convention does not allow a Colorado court to authorize substituted service of process. He argued that the Turks and Caicos order required personal service and that Article 19 of the Hague Service Convention does not allow a plaintiff to avail itself of local procedures, so the receivers needed to return to the Turks and Caicos court to request an order authorizing substituted service of process. However, the Turks and Caicos Supreme Court did not require personal service. Instead, it broadly authorized “leave to serve” at the Aspen residence or anywhere in the United States. Second, it is undisputed that the Turks and Caicos order for the transmission of documents for service abroad triggered the Hague Service Convention. Third, Article 19 allows for service of process through any method authorized by the law of the state in which service is being made. The court of appeals held that Article 19 permits service of process through any method authorized by Colorado law, including substituted service of process under CRCP 4(f). Thus, the Colorado district court was not required to send the receivers back to the Turks and Caicos Supreme Court for an order specifically designating a method of service.
Johansson also contended that the district court erred by allowing substituted service because (1) the receivers did not use due diligence to effectuate personal service on Johansson and (2) the substituted service was not reasonably calculated to give actual notice. However, the record clearly supports the district court’s determination that the receivers exercised due diligence, including six attempts at personal service and an extensive investigation. Second, given the nature of the relationships between the parties, the requested substituted service was reasonably calculated to give actual notice of the foreign action. And the district court also ordered that the receivers mail process to three locations. Therefore, the district court did not err in finding that substituted service of process was reasonably calculated to give actual notice to Johansson and in denying the motion to quash.
The denial of the motion to quash was affirmed.