Cawthon v. Yongchunkaerqimaoyiyouxiangongsi
- John Koeltl
- 1:25-cv-03209
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Scott Cawthon v. Yongchunkaerqimaoyiyouxiangongsi, Judge Koeltl ruled mailed service on defendants in China was ineffective under Rule 4(f).
Scott Cawthon and the defendants residing in China, because the court determined that Cawthon's mailed service was ineffective and that the defendants had not yet been properly served.
What happened
In Scott Cawthon v. Yongchunkaerqimaoyiyouxiangongsi, Scott Cawthon reported that he had served the defendants, who reside in China, by mail.
The court explained that China has objected to service by postal channels under the international agreement governing service of court papers abroad. Federal rules also did not allow the mailed service under the other methods discussed in the order.
Judge John G. Koeltl ruled that Cawthon had not yet properly served the defendants. The order did not authorize alternative service or make any other ruling about the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Cawthon v. Yongchunkaerqimaoyiyouxiangongsi · No. 1:25-cv-03209
- John Koeltl
- Oct. 16, 2025
Background
On September 24, 2025, Scott Cawthon filed an affidavit stating that he had served the defendants, who reside in China, by mail. The order also notes that Cawthon had previously attempted service by email, which the court had explained in an earlier order was not permitted for defendants located in China.
Legal framework
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) governs service of court papers outside the United States. Rule 4(f)(1) permits service through methods authorized by an international agreement, such as the Hague Service Convention. Rule 4(f)(2) allows certain alternative methods when no international agreement applies or when the agreement permits them. Rule 4(f)(3) allows other methods that the court orders, so long as an international agreement does not prohibit them.
The United States and China are both parties to the Hague Service Convention. The Convention permits some alternative methods, including service through postal channels, unless the receiving country objects. The court stated that China has specifically objected to service by postal channels. The court also explained that Chinese law generally prohibits foreign parties from serving defendants in China without the consent of the relevant administrative authorities, subject to exceptions that did not apply here.
Court’s analysis and ruling
The court concluded that Rule 4(f)(1) did not authorize service by mail because postal service is an optional method under the Hague Service Convention and China had objected to it. Rule 4(f)(2) did not apply because both countries are signatories to the Convention, and Rule 4(f)(2)(C) would not permit mailed service under the Chinese-law restriction described in the order. Rule 4(f)(3) also did not apply because the court had not authorized alternative service and the Convention prohibited mailed service in these circumstances.
Judge John G. Koeltl therefore concluded that Cawthon had not yet properly served the defendants. The order addressed service of process and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.