Wireless Environment, LLC v. Mikafentech, Inc.
Filing
15
Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 7/18/16. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this order, denies plaintiff's reapplication for default judgment, grants in part and denies in part plaintiff's motion for an extension and for service under Rule 4(f)(3), and denies as moot plaintiff's motion for leave to file additional email evidence. Plaintiff has until 8/26/16 to perfect service on defendant. (Related Docs. 12 , 13 , and 14 ) (D,MA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
-----------------------------------------------------WIRELESS ENVIRONMENT, LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MIKAFENTECH, INC.,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CASE NO. 16-CV-517
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Docs. 12, 13, 14]
-----------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Plaintiff Wireless Environment reapplies for default judgment against Defendant
Mikafentech.1 Plaintiff also moves for a time extension and for email service of process under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). 2 For the following reasons, this Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s reapplication for default judgment and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN
PART Plaintiff’s motion for service under Rule 4(f)(3). This Court also DENIES as moot
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file additional evidence. 3
I. Discussion
On May 25, 2016, this Court denied Plaintiff’s first application for default judgment
against Defendant Mikafentech. 4 This Court held that Plaintiff’s service attempts were not
reasonably calculated to give notice to Mikafentech and therefore did not comply with due
process requirements.
On May 31, 2016, Plaintiff emailed a copy of the summons and complaint to two email
addresses belonging to Mikafentech owner Cunyu Chen.5 On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff apparently
1
Doc. 12.
Doc. 13.
3
Doc. 14.
4
Doc. 11.
5
Doc. 12-7 at 2.
2
Case No. 16-cv-517
Gwin, J.
received a response from one of the email addresses stating that Defendant read Plaintiff’s
email.6 Plaintiff did not re-attempt service by mail or any other means after June 20, 2016.
Plaintiff argues that Defendant Mikafentech has actual knowledge of the lawsuit and that
their previous attempts at service are therefore now valid. This argument loses.
Even if Plaintiff’s May 31, 2016 email put Defendant on notice of the lawsuit, it does not
retroactively fix the March 2016 service attempts’ due process flaws.
Other than the May 31, 2016 email, Plaintiff has not re-attempted service since this Court
denied its previous default judgment application. Plaintiff has not perfected service on
Defendant. This Court DENIES Plaintiff’s reapplication for default judgment.
Plaintiff alternatively asks for an extension of time and for this Court to authorize service
of process by email under Rule 4(f)(3).7 This Court has discretion to allow service of process by
email when warranted. 8 This Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for email
service.9 Because this Court will not permit email service at this point, this Court DENIES as
moot Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file additional email evidence.
However, this Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to perfect
service on Defendant Mikafentech. Plaintiff has until August 26, 2016 to perfect service on
Defendant.
6
Doc. 12-8 at 3.
Doc. 13.
8
Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Ink Techs. Printer Supplies, LLC, 295 F.R.D. 259, 261 (S.D. Ohio 2013) (“The Court [] must
determine whether the facts and circumstances of the case warrant the exercise of its discretion to order alternative
service.”).
9
Plaintiff’s filings belie the need for email service. Plaintiff attaches a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
correspondence that lists Chen’s mailing address in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, China. Doc. 12-9 at 5.
7
-2-
Case No. 16-cv-517
Gwin, J.
II. Conclusion
For the above reasons, this Court DENIES plaintiff’s reapplication for default judgment
GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s motion for an extension and for service
under Rule 4(f)(3), and DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file additional evidence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 18, 2016
s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-
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?