Asia Cube Energy Holdings, Ltd. v. Inno Energy Tech Co., Ltd.

Background

Asia Cube Energy Holdings, Ltd. asked for permission to serve Hans Chia by email under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), which allows a court to authorize service on an individual outside the United States by means not prohibited by an international agreement. Asia Cube had filed a petition for a preliminary injunction in aid of planned arbitration. The petition sought an order requiring Inno Energy Tech Co., Ltd. and Chia to return official company seals, or “company chops,” used in China.

Asia Cube alleged that Chia had moved to Taiwan with the company chops after Asia Cube’s predecessor sought to remove him as its chief executive officer and legal representative in China. Asia Cube said it could not determine Chia’s physical address in Taiwan despite diligent efforts. It also said that, since Chia moved to Taiwan, its communications with him had been limited to email and that Chia had responded to emails concerning negotiations and the dispute.

Legal Standard

The court explained that Rule 4(f)(3) does not require a party to try the other methods of international service first. The proposed method must not be prohibited by an international agreement and must satisfy due process. Due process requires a method reasonably calculated to notify the person of the action and give that person an opportunity to object. Courts also generally consider whether the requesting party made a reasonable effort to serve the person and whether court intervention is necessary.

The court stated that Taiwan is not a party to the Hague Convention or another treaty or agreement with the United States concerning service of process. It therefore found no international-agreement barrier to email service. The court also found that Asia Cube’s evidence that Chia had recently used the relevant email addresses for business communications was enough to show that email service was likely to reach him.

Ruling

The court concluded that Asia Cube’s efforts to locate Chia’s physical address were not so deficient as to require denial of the request. It also found court intervention necessary because Asia Cube could not locate Chia and alleged that it faced time-sensitive harm while seeking emergency relief.

The request to serve Chia by email was GRANTED. Asia Cube was ordered to submit proof of service within one week after serving the respondents and to notify them of the court’s practice requiring attorneys appearing before Judge Nathan to register as electronic filing users and enter appearances. The order addressed only the method of service and did not reach the merits of the requested preliminary injunction.