[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] on Wednesday heard arguments in County of Los Angeles v. Mendez and Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon [SCOTUSblog backgrounders]. In County of Los Angeles [transcript, PDF], the court was asked to rule on a Fourth Amendment [text] civil rights action filed by two victims of a police shooting. Two Los Angeles County sheriffs entered Angel Mendez’s home without a warrant, found by [opinion, PDF] the trial court and Ninth Circuit to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Finding in favor of Mendez and his girlfriend, both of whom were shot after Mendez reached for a BB gun, lower courts applied provocation doctrine, holding that despite the reasonableness of the sheriffs’ reaction, the officers had created the situation which caused the injury by failing to obtain a warrant. The Supreme Court is asked to determine whether the provocation theory applies, as it allegedly conflicts with the court’s ruling in Graham v. Connor [opinion], and whether an incident giving rise to a reasonable use of force breaks the chain of causation.

In Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon [transcript, PDF], the court is asked to decide proper mode of international service under the Hague Convention [text, PDF]. Tara Menon worked for Water Splash, a company that makes splash pads for use in parks. During that time, Menon began using Water Splash designs for a competitor. Water Splash filed suit against Menon in Texas state court, and sought to serve her at her Quebec home by certified mail return receipt requested, first class mail, Federal Express and e-mail, to which Menon did not respond. The Texas state court granted Water Splash a default judgment, and Menon moved for a new trial alleging improper service. The Hague Convention, which governs service of process [California Courts backgrounder] across international lines, ostensibly does not permit service by mail but also includes a clause preserving “the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad.” The Texas 14th Court of Appeals found in Menon’s favor [opinion, PDF]. The question for the Supreme Court is whether the Hague Convention’s proscription on service by mail is superseded by its preservation of the freedom to send judicial documents by postal channels.