Fourte International Limited BVI et al v. Pin Shine Industrial Co., LTD. et al
Filing
13
ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 5 Ex Parte Motion for Order Authorizing Alternative Means of Service of Summon and Complaint; denying Plaintiffs' 9 Supplemental Ex Parte Motion for Order Authorizing Service of Summons and Complaint on Defendants Suzhou Pinshine Technology Co. Ltd and Suzhou Sunshine Technology Co., Ltd by Personal Service to Their California Counsel. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 4/11/2018. (jah)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
FOURTE INTERNATIONAL
LIMITED BVI, et al.,
14
15
Case No. 18-cv-00297-BAS-BGS
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
MOTIONS FOR ORDER
AUTHORIZING ALTERNATIVE
MEANS OF SERVICE OF
SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs,
v.
16
17
18
PIN SHINE INDUSTRIAL CO.,
LTD., et al.,
[ECF Nos. 5. 9]
Defendants.
19
20
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Fourte International Limited BVI and
21
Plaintiff Fourte International Sdn. Bhd.’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) ex parte motion
22
and supplemental ex parte motion for an order authorizing Plaintiffs to use alternative
23
methods to serve the complaint and summons on Defendants Suzhou Pinshine
24
Technology Co., Ltd. (“Pinshine”) and Suzhou Sunshine Technology Co., Ltd.
25
(“Sunshine”) (collectively, “Defendants”), both located in China. (ECF Nos. 5, 9.)
26
Plaintiffs requests two alternative avenues pursuant to Rule 4(h)(2) and Rule 4(f)(3):
27
(1) email service (ECF No. 5), and (2) service on the office of Defendants’ California
28
–1–
18cv0297
1
attorney (ECF No. 9). Defendants’ counsel opposed both ex parte motions. (ECF
2
Nos. 6, 10.)
3
Previously, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ ex parte application requesting the
4
Court to authorize service of the summons and complaint by the Clerk of the Court
5
pursuant to Rule 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) on two other defendants, Pin Shine Industrial Co., Ltd.
6
and Bobbin & Tooling Electronics International Company of BVI. (ECF No. 4.) The
7
motion was unopposed. Service was not affected upon Pin Shine Industrial Co., Ltd.
8
because Pin Shine Industrial Co., Ltd. refused to accept the delivery. (ECF No. 11.)
9
For the reasons herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ ex parte requests.
10
11
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
12
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 4(h)(2), if a corporation is served
13
outside any judicial district of the United States, it must be served “in any manner
14
prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving an individual, except personal delivery under
15
(f)(2)(C)(i).” Rule 4(f) permits service on an individual, other than a minor, an
16
incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed, at a place not within
17
any judicial district of the United States by one of three means. Of the methods Rule
18
4(f) permits, it “does not denote any hierarchy or preference of one method of service
19
over another.” Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th
20
Cir. 2002). Rule 4(f)(1) expressly addresses service pursuant to the Hague
21
Convention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1). Like the United States, China is a signatory
22
to the Hague Convention. The Hague Convention requires signatory countries to
23
establish a Central Authority to receive requests for service of documents from other
24
countries and to serve those documents by methods compatible with the internal laws
25
of the receiving state. See Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S.
26
694, 698-99 (1988). Service through a country’s Central Authority is the principal
27
means of service under the Hague Convention.
28
–2–
18cv0297
1
Rule 4(f)(3) permits service on an individual located abroad “by other means
2
not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
3
4(f)(3); cf. Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1015 n.4 (9th Cir.
4
2002) (“A federal court would be prohibited from issuing a Rule 4(f)(3) order in
5
contravention of an international agreement, including the Hague Convention,
6
referenced in Rule 4(f)(1).”). Service by email or on local U.S. counsel is not
7
expressly prohibited by the Hague Convention. See Art. 1-14; see also California Bd.
8
Sports, Inc. v. G.H. Dijkmans Beheer B.V., No. CIV.09CV1855LRBB, 2009 WL
9
3448456, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2009). The Ninth Circuit has determined that
10
“service of process under Rule 4(f)(3) is neither a ‘last resort’ nor ‘extraordinary
11
relief,’” Rio Props., 284 F.3d at 1015 (quoting Forum Fin. Grp., LLC v. President &
12
Fellows, 199 F.R.D. 22, 23-23 (D. Me. 2001)), and is available “without first
13
attempting service by other means.” Id. (referring to the advisory committee notes to
14
Rule 4(f)). However, the moving party must show “that the facts and circumstances
15
of the . . . case necessitate[ ] the district court's intervention.” Id. at 1016 (finding
16
alternative means of service was necessary because defendant was “elusive” and
17
“striving to evade service of process”).
18
19
II.
DISCUSSION
20
As an initial matter, Plaintiffs argue for the first time in their Reply that
21
Defendants cannot “specially appear” in federal court, and thus, by filing oppositions
22
to Plaintiffs’ motions regarding service, the Court “should find that Defendants . . .
23
are deemed served.” (ECF No. 7 at 2-3.) Even if the Court was to consider this
24
argument, it fails. See Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986) (finding that
25
making a “general appearance” requires an intention to appear); see also Twin Rivers
26
Eng’g, Inc. v. Fieldpiece Instruments, Inc., No. CV 16-04502-BRO (MRWx), 2016
27
WL 7479373, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2016) (rejecting plaintiff’s argument
28
regarding special appearances when defendant explicitly stated it intended to
–3–
18cv0297
1
challenge service in its first appearance to dispute an entry of default). Though
2
Defendants’ counsel’s label that he is “specially appearing” has no legal significance,
3
it “does emphasize a party’s intent to object to jurisdiction.” McGarr v. Hayford, 52
4
F.R.D. 219, 221 (S.D. Cal. 1971). Defendants have not waived any arguments
5
relating to insufficient service; instead, each appearance counsel has made is to solely
6
dispute the methods of service. See Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313,
7
1318 (9th Cir.1998); cf. Neumont Univ., LLC v. Nickles, 304 F.R.D. 594, 597 (D.
8
Nev. 2015) (“Such defenses may also be waived when a defendant ‘engage[s] in . . .
9
deliberate, strategic behavior’ in defending against the lawsuit.”). Thus, the Court
10
declines to find Defendants have waived any arguments regarding service or that
11
Defendants have been served.
12
As to Plaintiffs’ requests for a court order to serve Defendants by other
13
alternative methods under Rule (f)(3), the Court denies Plaintiffs’ requests. The Court
14
finds that Plaintiffs have not shown that the circumstances of this action necessitate
15
the Court’s intervention. Plaintiffs only argue that the requested alternative methods
16
of service are the most efficient and effective methods of service, but this argument
17
does not meet the requisite standard for obtaining a court order. See Rio Props., 284
18
F.3d at 1016; see also California Bd. Sports, Inc., 2009 WL 3448456, at *2 (denying
19
request for service on U.S. counsel when plaintiff only argued that service through
20
available methods was “too slow”). Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts that show
21
that the available methods of service have failed to affect service, that this case is of
22
particular urgency requiring alternative service methods, or any other facts to support
23
their requests. Instead, Plaintiffs only state that they attempted to serve a “waiver of
24
service of summons packet” on Pinshine by Federal Express, which Pinshine refused.
25
(Schierling Decl., ECF No. 5-1, ¶ 2.)
26
27
Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ ex parte requests to permit email
service and service on Defendants’ counsel under Rule 4(f)(3).
28
–4–
18cv0297
1
III.
CONCLUSION
2
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ ex parte requests to
3
authorize alternative service of process on Defendants Pinshine and Sunshine. (ECF
4
Nos. 5, 9.)
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
DATED: April 11, 2018
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–5–
18cv0297
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?