Weng v. Does 1-35
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-07082
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Weng v. Does 1-35, Judge Oetken denied reconsideration after finding service on GRNSHTS inadequate.
Weijie Weng and The GRNSHTS Store. The ruling leaves in place the prior dismissal of all claims against GRNSHTS for insufficient service of process.
What happened
In Weng v. Does 1-35, Weijie Weng, representing himself, asked the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of all claims against The GRNSHTS Store (GRNSHTS). The earlier dismissal had treated GRNSHTS’s motion as unopposed.
Weng argued that several December 2023 filings should have counted as opposition to GRNSHTS’s motion. He also argued that he had served GRNSHTS through online platforms and that GRNSHTS had given up its right to challenge service by participating in the case. The court considered his arguments but found that service by email was not permitted for a defendant in China and that GRNSHTS’s limited participation did not waive its service objection.
Judge Oetken denied Weng’s motion for reconsideration. The court concluded that Weng had not shown adequate service, so the earlier dismissal of all claims against GRNSHTS remained in place; it did not decide GRNSHTS’s separate challenge based on personal jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Weng v. Does 1-35 · No. 1:22-cv-07082
- James Oetken
- Feb. 18, 2025
Background
Weijie Weng brought a copyright action without a lawyer against more than sixty defendants, including The GRNSHTS Store (GRNSHTS). GRNSHTS moved to dismiss all claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process. The court previously granted that motion as unopposed. Weng then moved for reconsideration of the dismissal.
Weng’s arguments
Weng argued that the court incorrectly treated GRNSHTS’s motion as unopposed because he had filed several submissions between December 5 and December 18, 2023. The court considered those submissions while giving special consideration to his status as a self-represented litigant.
Weng argued that he had served GRNSHTS by sending legal documents to major online platforms, including Amazon, which then emailed GRNSHTS about the lawsuit. The court rejected this argument. Based on Weng’s own submission, GRNSHTS was located in Guangdong, China. The court explained that service by email was not allowed under the applicable international service rules or Chinese law.
Weng also argued that GRNSHTS’s participation in the case waived its objection to service. GRNSHTS’s lawyer had emailed Weng in March 2023 to identify the lawyer’s role and request more time to respond to the complaint. The court held that this limited activity, along with GRNSHTS’s notices of appearance, was not enough to waive the insufficient-service defense. The court noted that merely appearing or requesting an extension does not ordinarily establish waiver.
Ruling
The court concluded that Weng had not identified controlling decisions or evidence that it had overlooked and had not shown that he adequately served GRNSHTS. It therefore concluded that all claims against GRNSHTS had to be dismissed for insufficient service of process. Because that ground resolved the issue, the court did not reach GRNSHTS’s separate motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Judge J. Paul Oetken denied Weng’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket Number 142.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.