Centre Way Company Limited v. Fuzhou Puhua Minghui Trading Co. Ltd.

Background

Centre Way Company Limited asked the court to authorize substituted service under Rule 4(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It sought to serve Fuzhou Puhua Minghui Trading Co. Ltd., which Centre Way said was located in China, by hand-delivering the documents to the California Secretary of State’s office in Sacramento.

Rules 4(f) and 4(h)(2) govern service on individuals and corporations outside the United States. One option is service through an internationally agreed method, including the Hague Convention. Another is service by a different method ordered by the court, as long as an international agreement does not prohibit it and the method satisfies due process. Due process here required a method reasonably calculated to notify the defendant about the case and give it an opportunity to object.

The Court’s Analysis

Centre Way argued that alternate service was necessary because Hague Convention service would take between six months and three years. The court found that assertion unsupported because Centre Way provided no declaration or data. The court also found that Centre Way had not shown particularized reasons for its claim that it faced immediate, irreparable harm. A faster method of service, by itself, did not justify alternate service.

The court separately found that Centre Way had not shown that service on the California Secretary of State would notify Fuzhou Puhua Minghui about the action. Centre Way offered no facts supporting that conclusion and relied on general assertions about the defendant’s business contacts with California. The court also rejected Centre Way’s reliance on the Texas Civil Code because that law was neither binding nor persuasive to the court.

The court noted that Centre Way said it had sent an infringement notice to the defendant in China and attached the notice and a purported mailing receipt. The court also noted that courts have authorized various alternate methods of service, including publication, ordinary mail, delivery to a defendant’s attorney, telex, and email. But the opinion did not authorize any of those methods in this case.

Disposition

The court held that Centre Way had not sufficiently shown why it should be allowed to serve Fuzhou Puhua Minghui through the California Secretary of State or that the proposed method would satisfy due process. Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen denied Centre Way’s motion for substituted service without prejudice.