Centre Way Company Limited v. Ningo Wolfthon Technology Co., LTD
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-06012
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Centre Way v. Ningbo Wolfthon: Judge Liman ordered more briefing before deciding whether email service on defendants was allowed.
Centre Way Company Limited and the defendants named in the case, because the court required additional briefing before deciding whether the defendants could be served by email.
What happened
In Centre Way Company Limited v. Ningbo Wolfthon Technology Co. LTD, the plaintiff asked to serve the defendants with legal papers by email.
The court noted that a recent decision by Judge Woods concluded that email service on people or entities in China was not permitted under the international service convention or the federal rules.
Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered the plaintiff to file, by August 2, 2022, a supplemental letter brief explaining how much weight the court should give that decision and why the court should not follow its reasoning. The order did not decide the email-service motion.
The detailed version
- Centre Way Company Limited v. Ningo Wolfthon Technology Co., LTD · No. 1:22-cv-06012
- Lewis Liman
- July 25, 2022
Order and issue The court received the plaintiff’s motion to permit service of process—the delivery of legal papers initiating or continuing a case—by email on the defendants.
Court’s direction The court said the motion raised issues similar to those addressed in a recent decision by Judge Woods. That decision concluded that serving individuals or entities located in China by email was not permitted under the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court ordered the plaintiff to submit a supplemental letter brief of no more than five single-spaced pages by August 2, 2022. The brief had to explain what weight the court should give Judge Woods’s decision and why the court should not follow the analysis in that decision.
Disposition The order required additional briefing. It did not grant or deny the plaintiff’s motion to serve the defendants by email.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.