Miller Manufacturing Company v. HerculesAG LLC

Background

Plaintiff Miller Manufacturing Company filed suit against two defendants: HerculesAG LLC (a domestic defendant that has also filed counterclaims) and Foshan Shoumei Animal Husbandry Equipment Co., Ltd., doing business as Farmates Electrics Limited ("Farmates"), a China-based company. The litigation appears to involve cattle prod products. Farmates was added to the lawsuit in November 2025 and has not yet been served with process.

On January 27, 2026, Miller filed an Unopposed Motion for Alternative Service on Farmates and to Amend the Scheduling Order. The court requested additional evidence and directed Miller to make one more attempt to contact Farmates' U.S. counsel before ruling. Miller complied and supplemented its motion.

Legal Framework

Rule 4(f) — Service Outside the United States

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) governs service of process on parties located outside the United States. Subsection (f)(3) permits service "by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders." The court noted — citing Ninth Circuit authority — that this method is "as favored" as others under the rule and is "neither a last resort nor extraordinary relief." Courts may deny such requests if the movant sought alternative service "whimsically." Due process also requires that any court-approved method supply actual notice to the defendant in time to respond.

The Hague Service Convention

The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents (the "Hague Convention") is an international treaty governing formal service of process between signatory nations. The court noted that the Convention's requirements are only triggered when the law of the forum state defines the applicable service method as requiring transmittal of documents abroad. Because service on U.S.-based persons occurs entirely within the United States, the court found the Hague Convention would not be implicated. As for email, the court noted that while China has objected to Article 10 of the Convention (which addresses postal channels), courts generally have not interpreted that objection to apply to email.

Analysis

Alternative Service — U.S. Counsel (DENIED)

Miller asked to serve Farmates by delivering the lawsuit papers to two U.S. attorneys who had previously assisted Farmates with trademark filings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

The court identified two independent grounds for denying this method.

First — Rule 4(f) textual problem. Rule 4(f) applies when a plaintiff seeks to serve a party "at a place not within any judicial district of the United States." Because Miller itself conceded that service on U.S. counsel would be "effectuated entirely within the United States," the court found that Rule 4(f) does not provide a basis for this type of service. The court acknowledged that some courts have treated U.S. counsel as a mere "conduit" for transmission abroad, but rejected that reasoning as internally contradictory: one cannot simultaneously argue that service is completed in the United States (to avoid the Hague Convention) and that it is not completed in the United States (to qualify under Rule 4(f)).

Second — Due process / inadequate notice. Even if Rule 4(f) permitted this method, the court found the record insufficient to assure it that Farmates would actually receive notice. Courts assessing service via U.S. counsel look for evidence that the attorney: (1) has filed a notice of appearance in a related action; (2) has knowledge of the underlying facts; or (3) has a "special relationship" with the defendant. Here, one attorney no longer represented Farmates at all; the other had not responded to any of Miller's emails; and Miller acknowledged it was unaware of any special relationship between Farmates and either attorney beyond their handling of unrelated trademark applications. The court found this insufficient to satisfy due process.

Alternative Service — Email (GRANTED)

The court found that email service falls within the scope of Rule 4(f)(3) and is not prohibited by the Hague Convention. To authorize email service, the plaintiff must provide evidence that the defendant would likely receive the summons and complaint at the specified address — specifically, that the inbox is checked regularly.

Scheduling Order

Miller requested a six-month extension of all outstanding pretrial deadlines to account for the time needed to serve and litigate against Farmates. It initially requested the extension apply to the entire case, but later narrowed the request to apply only to proceedings involving Farmates — which HerculesAG LLC opposed, preferring a single schedule.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a pretrial schedule may be modified for good cause, measured primarily by the movant's diligence. The court found good cause: Farmates was only added in November 2025, Miller retained an international process server, and six-to-twelve months for Hague Convention service is well-recognized as sufficient justification for alternative service. The court extended all unexpired pretrial deadlines by six months but declined to bifurcate the schedule between the two defendants, citing increased logistical burdens on the court, complications in discovery, and potential interference with settlement.

The new deadlines are: - Close of fact discovery: August 17, 2026 - Non-dispositive motions related to fact discovery: September 3, 2026 - Disclosure of initial expert identities: September 10, 2026 - Service of initial expert reports: October 1, 2026 - Disclosure of rebuttal expert identities and service of rebuttal reports: November 2, 2026 - Close of expert discovery: December 2, 2026 - Non-dispositive motions related to expert discovery: December 9, 2026 - Dispositive motions: February 17, 2027 - Trial ready date: June 18, 2027

Because the court extended all deadlines by six months, the separate Stipulation to Amend Scheduling Order filed by Miller and HerculesAG was denied as moot.

Disposition

The Motion for Alternative Service and to Amend the Scheduling Order was granted in part and denied in part. Miller Manufacturing may serve Farmates by emailing ivy@farmates.com and/or ivan@farmates.com. The request to serve via U.S. counsel was denied. All unexpired pretrial deadlines were extended by six months on a single unified schedule. The parties' stipulation to amend the scheduling order was denied as moot.