VERITAS MEDICAL SOLUTONS, LLC v. ALLIANCE INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL (AIM) LIMITED

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
VERITAS MEDICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALLIANCE INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL
(AIM) LIMITED,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 26-2520
Pappert, J. 	October 15, 2026
MEMORANDUM
On September 24, 2026, Veritas Medical Solutions, LCC filed an ex parte motion
for special appointment of APS International, Ltd., to effect service of process on
Alliance International Medical (AIM) Limited, a Jamaican-based company. (Pl.’s Ex
Parte Mot. for Special Appointment for Service of Process, Dkt. No. 6.) Veritas mailed
AIM a Waiver of Summons form and associated documents on June 25, 2026, which
went unanswered. (Pl.’s Mot. ¶¶ 4, 5.) The Court denies the Motion without prejudice.
I
The United States Supreme Court has stated that “the core function of service is
to supply notice of the pendency of a legal action, in a manner and at a time that affords
the defendant a fair opportunity to answer the complaint and present defenses and
objections.” Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654, 672 (1996).
Veritas requests an order appointing APS International to serve process on
AIM under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). Rule 4(c)(3) states that, “[a]t the
plaintiff’s request, the court may order that service be made by . . . a person
Case 2:26-cv-02520-GJP Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 3

2
specially appointed by the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (emphasis added).
However, it is not clear from Veritas’s motion that APS International requires any
authority not already provided under the Federal Rules. See e.g., Millennium
Pharm. Sys., LLC v. MAPA Operating, LLC, No. CV 19-2428, 2019 WL 7297658
(E.D. Pa. Dec. 30, 2019). Rule 4(c)(2) allows service by “[a]ny person who is at least
18 years old and not a party” to the case. As such, a “court appointment no longer is
necessary when the plaintiff wants to use someone other than a marshal or deputy
marshal. . . . [A] court appointment will be appropriate only when a particular
person is needed or that person needs to be given an authority that is not available
to the ordinary private process server.” Millennium Pharm., 2019 WL 7297658, at
*1–2 (quoting 4A CHARLES A. WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, F EDERAL P RACTICE AND
P ROCEDURE § 1091 (4th ed. 2019)). Veritas does not state why APS International
needs authority from the court to serve AIM. Id. (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Weir,
531 F. Supp. 2d 674, 679 (E.D.N.C. 2008) (“[A]ny motion for appointment of a
special process server should indicate why that authority is necessary to accomplish
service of process.”)).
II
A business entity in a foreign country “must be served . . . in any manner
prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving an individual, except personal delivery under
(f)(2)(C)(i).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h). Rule 4(f) establishes that, if there is no internally
agreed means of service, an individual in a foreign country may be served “by a
method that is reasonably calculated to give notice,” which includes service “as
Case 2:26-cv-02520-GJP Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 3

3
prescribed by the foreign country’s law for service in that country in an action in its
courts of general jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(2)(a).
Jamaica is not a party to the Hague Convention, so Rule 4(f)(2) applies. See
Copia Commc’ns, LLC, v. AM Resorts, L.P., No. CV 16-5575, 2017 WL 2656184
(E.D. Pa. June 20, 2017); U.S. Embassy in Kingston, Serving Papers/Process of
Service, U.S. Embassy in Jamaica (July 15, 2025), https://jm.usembassy.gov/serving-
papers/?_ga=2.259411978.1658471165.1792014737-308321095.1792014715.
Accordingly, service of process may be effected according to Jamaican laws for
service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(2)(a).
Jamaican Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 5.7 allows for service on a limited
company. Jamaica R. Civ. P. (2006). As such, Veritas may effect service of process
through any of the means set forth in Rule 5.7, which would include “serving the
claim form personally on any director, officer, receiver, receiver-manager or
liquidator of the company” or “serving the claim form personally on an officer or
manager of the company at any place of business of the company which has a real
connection with the claim.” Rule 5.7(c) & (d).
An appropriate Order follows.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gerald J. Pappert
Gerald J. Pappert, J.
Case 2:26-cv-02520-GJP Document 7 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 3