HP Inc. v. WISETA
- Haywood Gilliam
- 3:23-cv-00344
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In HP Inc. v. WISETA, Judge Gilliam granted electronic alternate service because defendants’ physical addresses were unknown.
HP Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. may serve the remaining defendants by email and through Amazon’s messaging system. The order affects the defendants by authorizing those methods as service of the lawsuit and requiring the plaintiffs to report on the results.
What happened
In HP Inc. v. WISETA, HP Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. said online sellers were offering off-brand ink and toner made to resemble their products. The plaintiffs said they could not serve the defendants because the physical addresses listed on their online storefronts were invalid.
The court allowed the plaintiffs to serve the defendants by email and through Amazon’s messaging system. It found that the plaintiffs had made reasonable efforts to locate valid addresses, that the international service treaty did not apply because the addresses were unknown, and that the approved methods were reasonably likely to notify the defendants.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the application and ordered service within seven days. He also required a status report by May 12, 2023, and moved the case-management conference to June 13, 2023.
The detailed version
- HP Inc. v. WISETA · No. 3:23-cv-00344
- Haywood Gilliam
- Apr. 27, 2023
Background
HP Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. filed an application for alternate service—service of legal papers by a method other than the usual method of delivering them to a physical address. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were online sellers offering off-brand ink and toner designed to look like the plaintiffs’ products on Amazon and other online marketplaces. The plaintiffs believed the defendants resided or operated in China.
The plaintiffs said they had been unable to serve the defendants through traditional methods. They investigated the physical addresses listed on the defendants’ Amazon storefronts, including through a U.S.-based investigator who made test purchases and a China-based investigator who researched and visited the listed locations. The investigation found private residences, empty buildings, or unrelated businesses rather than valid addresses connected to the defendants. The opinion also notes that the plaintiffs successfully served Defendant EJET after filing the application.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) governs service on entities outside the United States. Under Rule 4(f)(3), a court may authorize another method of service if an international agreement does not prohibit it. The method must also satisfy due process, meaning it must be reasonably likely under the circumstances to notify the affected parties about the case and give them an opportunity to respond.
The United States and China are parties to the Hague Convention on service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents. But the Convention states that it does not apply when the address of the person to be served is unknown.
Court’s analysis
The court found that the plaintiffs’ investigation was reasonable and thorough and that the defendants’ addresses were not known. The court therefore found that the Hague Convention did not apply on the facts presented.
The court also found that service by email and through Amazon’s messaging system satisfied due process. The defendants maintained active Amazon storefronts and used email and Amazon messaging to conduct their businesses and communicate with customers. The opinion states that ZHAICOLOR and Rohon contacted the plaintiffs’ investigator by email about test purchases. The plaintiffs also contacted the defendants through Amazon’s messaging system, and ZHAICOLOR responded to a message by asking the plaintiffs to resend attachments.
Disposition
The court GRANTED the plaintiffs’ application. It DIRECTED the plaintiffs to serve the defendants by email and through Amazon’s messaging system within seven days of the order. It also required the plaintiffs to file a status report by May 12, 2023, confirming whether service was completed and describing any responses from the remaining defendants.
The court CONTINUED the May 2, 2023 telephonic case-management conference to June 13, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. It DIRECTED the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint case-management statement by June 6, 2023, and stated that the order terminated Docket No. 17.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.