Maddry v. Luoxue
- Beth Freeman
- 5:25-cv-02449
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Maddry v. Luoxue, Judge Freeman denied alternative service by email and online platforms without prejudice.
Daniel M. Maddry’s ability to serve Luoxue, Zhang Zhenkai, and Guoyanquing in the copyright case was affected. The motion was denied without prejudice, so Maddry may renew it later.
What happened
In Maddry v. Luoxue, Daniel M. Maddry sued Luoxue, Zhang Zhenkai, and Guoyanquing for allegedly selling counterfeit copies of his card game, “Discernment.” He asked to serve them by email and through legal departments at Amazon, Walmart, and eBay.
The court found that the Hague Service Convention applies because the defendants are alleged to operate out of China. It concluded that email service to a defendant in China is prohibited by that treaty under the reasoning the court found persuasive. Maddry had not shown that he first attempted service through the treaty’s procedures or established that the defendants’ addresses were unknown.
The court denied Maddry’s motion for alternative service without prejudice, allowing him to renew it later. Judge Beth Freeman issued the order on March 18, 2025.
The detailed version
- Maddry v. Luoxue · No. 5:25-cv-02449
- Beth Freeman
- Mar. 18, 2025
Background
Daniel M. Maddry sued Luoxue, Zhang Zhenkai, and Guoyanquing, each alleged to be an individual or business entity operating out of China. Maddry alleged that he owns the card game “Discernment” and that counterfeit versions were being sold on Amazon, Walmart.com, and eBay.com. His complaint asserts one claim for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501.
Maddry asked the court to authorize alternative service. He proposed sending the summons and complaint by email and asking the legal departments of Amazon, Walmart, and eBay to provide the documents to the defendants through their internal communication systems. He stated that he had tried to locate valid business addresses and had sent cease-and-desist letters by email, but the defendants had not responded.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) governs service on an individual outside the United States. Under Rule 4(f)(3), a court may order another method of service if the method is not prohibited by an international agreement. The court explained that alternative service must be directed by the court and must not violate an applicable treaty.
The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters applies because China is a signatory. The court described the Convention as establishing approved methods for serving documents abroad and concluded that it preempts inconsistent methods where it applies.
Court’s analysis
The court adopted the reasoning of decisions concluding that email service on defendants in China is prohibited by the Hague Service Convention because email is not one of the Convention’s listed alternative methods and China has not affirmatively agreed to service by email. The court stated that alternative service might be allowed in circumstances such as a foreign authority’s improper refusal to complete service or its failure to return a required certificate for more than six months. Maddry had not submitted evidence that he attempted service under the Convention, so that exception did not apply.
The court also noted that an exception might apply when a defendant’s address is unknown. But Maddry had not expressly asserted that the defendants’ addresses were unknown and had not provided evidence showing reasonable diligence in trying to discover them.
Disposition
The court held that permitting email service at that time was premature. It denied Maddry’s motion for alternative service without prejudice to renewing the motion later. The order does not decide the merits of Maddry’s copyright-infringement claim.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.