Choi v. Kim

Filing 17

ORDER: Accordingly, the time to effect service on the defendant pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is extended without date. This case may be dismissed without prejudice if the plaintiff fails to effect properly service on the defendant within a reasonable time. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 3/7/2025) (ks)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
????????????????????????????????????
JI HYE CHOI,
Plaintiff,
- against -

24-cv-6526 (JGK)
ORDER

YEOUNG SOO KIM,

Defendant.
????????????????????????????????????
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
On March 4, 2025, the plaintiff submitted documents showing
that the plaintiff sent the summons, but not the complaint, to the
defendant at the defendant’s address in the Republic of Korea via
Korea Post. ECF No. 16. The documents submitted by the plaintiff
show that the defendant received the summons via Korea Post on
February 25, 2025. Id.
“[I]n cases governed by the Hague Service Convention, service
by mail is permissible if two conditions are met: first, the
receiving state has not objected to service by mail; and second,
service by mail is authorized under otherwise-applicable law.”
Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 581 U.S. 271, 137 (2017).
The plaintiff’s service attempt was deficient for at least two
reasons. First, pursuant to Rule 4(c)(1), “[a] summons must be
served with a copy of the complaint.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1).
Second, although “[t]he Republic of Korea is a state party to the
Hague Convention,” the Republic of Korea “objected pursuant to
Article 10 of the Hague Convention to,” among other provisions,
“the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels,

directly to persons abroad.” Sharp v. Shinhan Bank Co., Ltd., No.
21-cv-9197, 2022 WL 22339345, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2022).
Accordingly, to effect properly “service in [t]he Republic of Korea
under the Hague Convention, a plaintiff must serve a translated
version” of the summons and complaint on the defendant “through
South Korea’s designated Central Authority.” See id.
On January 27, 2025, this Court extended the time to effect
service pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
until March 6, 2025. ECF No. 15. However, the 90-day time limit set
forth in Rule 4(m) does not apply to service in a foreign country.
See USHA (India), Ltd. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 421 F.3d 129, 133–
34 (2d Cir. 2005). Therefore, a district court must, in its
discretion, permit a reasonable time to serve a defendant in a
foreign country. See Nagy v. Dwyer, 507 F.3d 161, 163 (2d Cir.
2007).
Accordingly, the time to effect service on the defendant
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is
extended without date. This case may be dismissed without prejudice
if the plaintiff fails to effect properly service on the defendant
within a reasonable time.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
March 7, 2025

/s/ John G. Koeltl
John G. Koeltl
United States District Judge

2