Piechowicz v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified in…

Background

The court held a telephone hearing concerning an order to show cause for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order. A temporary restraining order is a short-term order intended to preserve the situation while the court considers further relief. The court had entered the order on August 6, 2024, and extended it on August 16, 2024.

During the hearing, the plaintiff’s counsel stated that the plaintiff had not attempted to serve defendants located in China through China’s Central Authority under the Hague Convention. The court noted that the Hague Convention’s service requirement does not apply when the address of the person to be served is not known. The court explained that an address is considered not known when the plaintiff has exercised reasonable diligence to discover a physical address and was unsuccessful.

Court’s reasoning

The court stated that reasonable diligence may include investigating websites associated with a defendant’s domain names, conducting multiple internet searches, calling known telephone numbers, making in-person visits, issuing subpoenas to domain registrars and email providers, and trying to obtain the address in other ways. The court said it could authorize the alternative electronic service method described by the plaintiff if, for each defendant to whom the Hague Convention applies, the plaintiff adequately shows that the defendant’s address is not known. The court did not state that it had authorized that alternative service in this order.

Order

For good cause, including the plaintiff’s ongoing efforts to properly serve the defendants listed in Schedule A of the amended complaint, the court extended the temporary restraining order for 15 days, until September 18, 2024. The deadline to file and serve opposing papers was extended to September 17, 2024.

The court also ordered the plaintiff, by September 17, to file a public-docket letter addressing each defendant who remained a party. The letter had to state how the plaintiff contacted the defendant, summarize relevant communications—including whether the defendant asked about opposing the temporary restraining order—and describe the plaintiff’s efforts to determine each China-based defendant’s physical address for service. For Defendant #24, the letter also had to include the physical address listed on that defendant’s Amazon.com storefront, if any.

If the plaintiff intended to seek a preliminary injunction, the court required the plaintiff to file the motion and supporting papers by September 17. The court scheduled a telephone hearing for September 18, 2024, at 12:45 p.m.