Teetex LLC v. Zeetex, LLC

Background

Teetex brought claims against Shanghai Tianan Textile Co., Ltd. (STA), Jiajie Zhu, and Zeetex, LLC. The second amended complaint asserted a breach-of-contract claim against STA, a trademark-infringement claim against the Zhu Defendants, and an unfair-competition claim against all defendants. The court had previously granted the Zhu Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. STA remained unserved.

Teetex attempted to serve STA in China under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents. Its process server sent the required documents to China’s Central Authority on December 7, 2021, and later sent three letters asking about the status of service. The process server received no response. Teetex therefore moved for an order allowing alternative service by email on Zhu, STA’s general manager, and Brian Irion, Zhu’s attorney of record.

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) allows a court to order service of process outside the United States by means not prohibited by an international agreement. The court explained that this method is not required to be a last resort. Any court-approved method must also satisfy due process, meaning it must be reasonably calculated to notify the affected party about the case and provide an opportunity to respond.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the circumstances supported alternative service because Teetex had tried to use the Hague Convention process and had received no response from China’s Central Authority. More than six months had passed without a certificate of service or other response.

The court concluded that email service on Zhu was not prohibited by the Hague Convention. Although the Hague Convention applied because Zhu resided in China, the court relied on the view that China’s objection to certain postal methods did not prohibit email service. The court also noted that the Hague Convention materials allowed a judge to direct a special method of service when a central authority had not provided a certificate of service within six months.

The court determined that email service on Irion was domestic because his office was in California, so the Hague Convention did not apply to that service. The proposed service also satisfied due process. Zhu was STA’s general manager, and Teetex had previously communicated with him by email at both his personal and STA email accounts. The court also found that service on Irion was reasonably calculated to notify STA because Irion represented Zhu in the case and Zhu was a party.

Disposition

The court granted Teetex’s motion to effect alternative service on STA. Teetex was ordered to serve STA by email on Zhu and Irion within 20 days of the order. The court vacated the hearing scheduled for October 21, 2022.