Spin Master Ltd. and Spin Master Toys UK Limited v. Chakaruna4169 et.al.
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-00553
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Spin Master v. Chakaruna4169, Judge Cronan postponed the default-judgment hearing and required briefing on whether email service complied with Rule 4(f).
The plaintiffs and the remaining defendants, particularly the defendants served in China; the scheduled default-judgment hearing was also affected.
What happened
In Spin Master Ltd. and Spin Master Toys UK Limited v. Chakaruna4169 et.al., the plaintiffs asked the court to enter judgment because the remaining defendants had not appeared.
Before entering that kind of judgment, the court had to determine whether it had authority over the defendants and whether the plaintiffs properly served them. The plaintiffs served the defendants in China by email under an earlier temporary restraining order, but the court said it was unclear whether that service complied with the federal service rule.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered the plaintiffs to file a supplemental brief addressing the service issue and the reasoning of a related Southern District of New York decision. He also adjourned the scheduled default-judgment hearing without setting a new date.
The detailed version
- Spin Master Ltd. and Spin Master Toys UK Limited v. Chakaruna4169 et.al. · No. 1:22-cv-00553
- John Cronan
- July 27, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs moved for default judgment against the remaining defendants. A default judgment is a judgment requested because a defendant has not responded or appeared. Before deciding that motion, the court stated that it could first ensure that it had personal jurisdiction—the court’s legal authority over the defendants.
The court explained that personal jurisdiction generally requires proper service of the summons and complaint. The plaintiffs filed certificates stating that they served the defendants in China through an alternative method authorized in a temporary restraining order. That method involved sending the court’s order, the summons, and the complaint to email addresses identified by eBay, along with a link to a secure website containing those documents and related filings.
Service Issue
The court said that service of the temporary restraining order and accompanying documents complied with that order’s terms. It was still unclear, however, whether sending the summons and complaint by email complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f), which governs service on individuals in foreign countries.
The opinion states that the defendants were Chinese individuals or entities. It also noted that a recent decision by another judge in the Southern District of New York held that email service on Chinese defendants did not comply with Rule 4 and therefore did not establish personal jurisdiction. That decision also recognized that some courts, including courts in the Second Circuit, had reached the opposite conclusion about whether the Hague Convention permits email service on Chinese defendants.
Ruling
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a supplemental brief by August 4, 2022, explaining whether they properly served the defendants by email under Rule 4(f). The brief had to address the reasoning of the recent Southern District of New York decision. To allow time to resolve the service question, Judge John P. Cronan adjourned the default-judgment hearing scheduled for August 1, 2022, without setting a new date. The order did not decide whether the email service was valid or whether default judgment should be entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.