Cawthon v. Zeng
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-02895
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cawthon v. Zeng, Judge Cronan required more information about email service on a defendant in China before considering default judgment.
Scott Cawthon was required to provide additional information about service. Jinsheng Zeng was affected because the validity of service determined whether the case could proceed toward a default judgment.
What happened
In Cawthon v. Zeng, Scott Cawthon reported serving Jinsheng Zeng in China by email and Federal Express and indicated that he intended to seek a default judgment.
The court explained that the Hague Convention applies to service in China, which has objected to certain listed service methods. The court concluded that Federal Express did not properly serve Zeng, while noting that courts disagreed about whether email service is allowed in these circumstances.
Judge Cronan ordered Cawthon to file a letter by July 20, 2022, addressing whether email service was proper, whether Chinese law permits it, and whether Cawthon wanted court permission to use email service. The court said it would set a schedule for briefing on default judgment after reviewing the letter.
The detailed version
- Cawthon v. Zeng · No. 1:22-cv-02895
- John Cronan
- July 13, 2022
Background
Scott Cawthon filed a certificate stating that Jinsheng Zeng had been served with the summons and complaint in China by electronic mail and Federal Express. Cawthon also stated that he intended to request entry of default and provide proof of service.
Service requirements
The court explained that China is a signatory to the Hague Convention on service of judicial documents and that compliance with the Convention is mandatory when it applies. Article 10(a) addresses sending judicial documents through postal channels when the destination country does not object. The Second Circuit has interpreted “send” in that provision to mean “service.” The court stated that China has objected to the Article 10 service methods. It therefore concluded that service through Federal Express was not proper.
The court noted that district courts in the Second Circuit appeared divided on whether email service is appropriate when a country has objected to postal service under Article 10. The opinion did not decide whether email service on Zeng was proper.
Order
The court ordered Cawthon to file a letter by July 20, 2022, explaining whether service by email complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f), whether Chinese law permits service of process by email, and whether Cawthon was requesting permission to serve Zeng by email under Rule 4(f)(3). The court stated that, after reviewing the letter, it would set a briefing schedule on Cawthon’s motion for default judgment as appropriate. The order did not decide the default-judgment motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.