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