Coy v. Lilith Games Co., Ltd.

Background

This putative consumer class action concerns the “Rise of Kingdoms” mobile videogame and certain in-game micro-transactions. Coy alleges that the defendants engaged in deceptive and misleading conduct. He asked the court for permission to serve Lilith Games (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. and Shanghai Lilith Network Technology Co., Ltd. through alternative methods under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), which allows a court to direct service on a foreign defendant when the method is not prohibited by an international agreement.

The defendants had not appeared or responded to the service request. Coy proposed personally serving Bart Rankin, an attorney who had represented the defendants in two other cases in the Northern District of California, and sending the summons and complaint by email to several addresses. Coy also described unsuccessful service efforts, including an attempt under the Hague Convention at an address in Hong Kong. The court noted evidence that service in mainland China through that convention could be expensive and could take at least a year, while delays of two or three years were described as normal.

Court’s Analysis

Alternative service must be reasonably likely, under the circumstances, to notify the defendants about the lawsuit and give them an opportunity to object. The court concluded that its intervention on service was appropriate because Coy had made substantial efforts to reach the defendants.

The court denied the request to serve Rankin. Rankin stated that he had not been retained or authorized by the defendants to accept service in this lawsuit. Although he knew about the lawsuit, the court found that he had no demonstrated connection to this dispute and that service on him was not sufficiently likely to notify the defendants in the legally required way.

The court found Alisa Zheng to be a more appropriate recipient because she had previously contacted Coy’s counsel as “Legal Counsel of Lilith Games” about the allegations involved in this case. The court authorized email service to Zheng’s address, the two addresses she copied on her earlier response, and the service address she provided. The court also stated that the defendants could ask to quash, or set aside, the service if they had good cause to argue that email service in China was prohibited by the Hague Convention or another international agreement.

Ruling

The court granted Coy’s request in part. It authorized email service on the two foreign defendants through the four specified email addresses and denied the proposed substitute service on Rankin. The emails Coy had already sent were not authorized by a court order and could not be made valid retroactively. Coy was directed to serve the defendants again under the order, serve the order at the same email addresses, and file proof of service.

The court also vacated the case-management conference and stated that it would be reset after the defendants appeared. The case was to be administratively closed in the meantime. The order was signed by Judge James Donato.