Crocs, Inc. v. Jinjiang HobiBear Shoes & Clothing Co., Ltd.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-00180
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Crocs v. Jinjiang HobiBear, Judge Furman granted permission to serve HobiBear by email after finding the Hague Convention inapplicable.
Crocs, Inc. and Jibbitz, Inc. were authorized to serve Jinjiang HobiBear Shoes & Clothing Co., Ltd. by email. HobiBear is the defendant to be served.
What happened
In Crocs, Inc. v. Jinjiang HobiBear Shoes & Clothing Co., Ltd., Crocs, Inc. and Jibbitz, Inc. asked to serve HobiBear, an entity located in China, by email.
The court found that the plaintiffs had reasonably tried to find a physical address by researching online, examining product packaging, and investigating addresses linked to HobiBear’s social-media pages. Because the address was not known, the court found that the Hague Convention did not apply.
Judge Furman granted the plaintiffs’ motion for alternative service. He authorized them to send the summons, complaint, and notice to two specified email addresses and required them to file proof of service with delivery and read receipts.
The detailed version
- Crocs, Inc. v. Jinjiang HobiBear Shoes & Clothing Co., Ltd. · No. 1:25-cv-00180
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 28, 2025
Background
Crocs, Inc. and Jibbitz, Inc. sued Jinjiang HobiBear Shoes & Clothing Co., Ltd. (“HobiBear”). They moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), which allows a court to authorize service of process on a defendant outside the United States by a method not otherwise prohibited by international agreement.
The plaintiffs asked to serve HobiBear by email at service@HobiBear.com and ip@whosebilling.com. They also asked to file proof of service, including delivery receipts and read receipts.
Court’s Analysis
China is a signatory to the Hague Convention on service abroad, but the court explained that the Convention does not apply when the address of the person to be served is not known. Courts in the Southern District of New York consider an address unknown when a plaintiff exercises reasonable diligence to find a physical address for service but is unsuccessful.
The court found that the plaintiffs had shown reasonable diligence. Their efforts included Internet research, examination of HobiBear’s product packaging, and investigation of two physical addresses associated with HobiBear’s social-media pages. The court therefore concluded that the Hague Convention did not apply.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the plaintiffs’ motion for alternative service. The court authorized service of the summons, complaint, and notice on HobiBear by email at the two specified addresses, with proof of service to be filed together with any delivery and read receipts. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion docketed as ECF No. 14.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.