Crocs, Inc. et al v. Jinjiang HobiBear Shoes & Clothing Co., Ltd.
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 14 MOTION to Serve defendant Jinjiang HobiBear Shoes & Clothing Co., Ltd. by e-mail. filed by Jibbitz, Inc., Crocs, Inc. Accordingly, the Hague Convention does not apply. In light of that conclusio n, and substantially for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' memorandum of law, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for alternative service. Plaintiffs are authorized to serve the Summons, Complaint, and Notice on Defendant by email to the emailaddresses service@HobiBear.com and ip@whosebilling.com, with proof of service to be filed with any delivery receipts and read receipts. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 14. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/28/2025) (vfr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
CROCS, INC. et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-v:
:
JINJIANG HOBIBEAR SHOES & CLOTHING CO.,
:
LTD.,
:
:
Defendant.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
25-CV-180 (JMF)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
On January 24, 2025, Plaintiffs Crocs, Inc. and Jibbitz, Inc. filed a motion, pursuant to
Rule 4(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to serve Defendant Jinjiang HobiBear
Shoes & Clothing Co., Ltd. (“HobiBear”) by e-mail. See ECF No. 14. Specifically, Plaintiffs
seek to serve Defendant, an entity located in China, “by e-mail to the e-mail addresses
service@HobiBear.com and ip@whosebilling.com, with proof of service to be filed including
any delivery receipts and read receipts.” ECF No. 16, at 11.
Although China is a signatory to the Hague Convention, the Convention “shall not apply
where the address of the person to be served with the document is not known.” Hague
Convention, Nov. 15, 1965, Article 1, 20 U.S.T. 361; see also Smart Study Co. v. Acuteye-Us,
620 F. Supp. 3d 1382, 1390 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) (“The Hague Convention does not apply where the
address of the person to be served with the document is not known.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)). “Courts in this Circuit have found an address is not known if the plaintiff exercised
reasonable diligence in attempting to discover a physical address for service of process and was
unsuccessful in doing so.” Kelly Toys Holdings, LLC. v. Top Dep’t Store, 22-CV-558 (PAE),
2022 WL 3701216, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, Plaintiffs have demonstrated the exercise of reasonable diligence by conducting
Internet research, examining the packaging of Defendant’s product, and investigating the two
physical addresses associated with Defendant’s social media pages. See ECF No. 15, ¶¶ 6-9, 1420; see e.g., Prediction Co. v. Rajgarhia, No. 09-CV-7459 (SAS), 2010 WL 1050307, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2010) (“[The plaintiff] has met its burden, having actively, though
unsuccessfully, attempted to obtain [the defendant’s] address in a variety of ways.”).
Accordingly, the Hague Convention does not apply.
In light of that conclusion, and substantially for the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs’
memorandum of law, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for alternative service. Plaintiffs are
authorized to serve the Summons, Complaint, and Notice on Defendant by email to the email
addresses service@HobiBear.com and ip@whosebilling.com, with proof of service to be filed
with any delivery receipts and read receipts.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 14.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 28, 2025
New York, New York
__________________________________
JESSE M. FURMAN
United States District Judge
2
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?