Cree, Inc. v. Kingbright Electronic Co., Ltd. et al
Filing
9
ORDER granting 8 Motion for Clerk to Complete Service. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 9/25/2014. (voc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
__________________________________________________________________________________________
CREE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
14-cv-621-slc
KINGBRIGHT ELECTRONIC CO., LTD.,
KINGBRIGHT CORPORATION, and
SUNLED CORPORATION,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(h)(2), plaintiff Cree, Inc. has moved for the court to order
the clerk of court to serve plaintiff’s complaint on defendant Kingbright Electronic Co., Ltd.
(Kingbright Ltd.) by mail as permitted by Rule 4(f)(2)(C)(ii). See dkt. 8. Although the court’s
computer set a response deadline, no other party has appeared yet, so the court need not wait for this
deadline to pass.
Plaintiff has sufficiently established that Kingbright Ltd. Is a Taiwanese corporation with a
business address in Taiwan; Taiwan is not a party to the Hague Convention and there is no other
internationally agreed-upon method of service on Taiwanese companies; Taiwanese law does not
prohibit service via mail from a clerk of court; and that mailed service pursuant to the rule is
reasonably calculated to provide notice to Kingbright Ltd. because registered mail with a return
receipt adequately ensures that this defendant actually receives the served documents and thereby
becomes aware of the nature of the complaint against it in this court.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED and the clerk of this court
shall complete service on defendant Kingbright Electronic Co., Ltd. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro.
4(f)(2)(C)(ii).
Entered this 25th day of September 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge
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?