Fox Shiver LLC v. Individuals

Background

Fox Shiver filed a February 12, 2025 letter requesting permission to serve Defendant #108, Guangzhou Xingchunhe Trading Co., Ltd., by email. Fox Shiver reported that the Chinese Central Authority had issued a Certificate of Non-Service stating that the provided address did not exist and the recipient could not be reached.

Fox Shiver also reported that it had tried to find valid addresses, including by retaining a third-party investigative firm specializing in due-diligence searches of Asian entities. Fox Shiver said those efforts did not contact the defendants and led it to conclude that they had provided false information to various entities, including the relevant governmental authority. Fox Shiver further stated that the Chinese Central Authority had not provided an alternative address.

Court’s analysis

The court relied on its earlier orders explaining that email service is allowed when the Hague Convention does not apply. The court stated that the Hague Convention does not apply when the address of the person to be served is unknown to the party serving process. An address is considered unknown when the plaintiff has exercised reasonable diligence in trying unsuccessfully to discover a physical address.

Applying that standard, the court concluded that Fox Shiver had exercised reasonable diligence in trying to identify Defendant #108’s physical address, that the address was not known, and that the Hague Convention was therefore inapplicable.

Ruling

The court granted Fox Shiver’s motion to serve Defendant #108 by email. It directed Fox Shiver to complete electronic service on that defendant within 14 days.