New Fortune Inc. v. Apex Logistics International Ltd.

Background

New Fortune Inc. filed the action against Apex Logistics International (CN) Ltd. and Aeroflot Airlines on June 25, 2020. The opinion describes Apex as a Chinese corporation and Aeroflot as a Russian corporation. In a July 8 letter, New Fortune represented that formal service on the defendants would take more than a year, partly because of the coronavirus pandemic. New Fortune asked the court to authorize substituted, or alternative, service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f).

Legal standard

Rule 4(f) permits a court to direct service on a defendant outside the United States through certain forms of mail or by other methods not prohibited by an international agreement. The court explained that it has broad discretion to order alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3). The method must satisfy due process, meaning it must be reasonably calculated under the circumstances to notify interested parties that the lawsuit is pending. A plaintiff does not have to try every permissible service method before seeking alternative service, but must show that the facts and circumstances require the court’s intervention.

Proposed methods

For Apex, New Fortune identified four possible methods: mailing papers to an Apex affiliate doing business at John F. Kennedy International Airport; mailing papers to a California address appearing on an invoice Apex issued to New Fortune; mailing papers to a New York affiliate of Apex; and serving Leon Garonski, a New Jersey attorney whom New Fortune said represented that he served as Apex’s corporate counsel. For Aeroflot, New Fortune suggested mailing papers to an Aeroflot affiliate doing business at John F. Kennedy International Airport.

Ruling

Judge Denise Cote ordered New Fortune to file a proposed order by July 16, 2020. The proposed order had to provide a detailed description of alternative service for both defendants that New Fortune believed would satisfy the due-process requirements described in the opinion. The order did not authorize any specific alternative-service method at that time.

Disposition

The court issued an order requiring a proposed filing; the opinion does not state that New Fortune’s request for alternative service was granted or denied.