Zuru PTE. v. Individuals

Background

Default judgment had been entered against certain defendants who were served by email. In an earlier order, the court authorized email service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), which permits service on an individual in a foreign country by another method that is not prohibited by an international agreement and that the court orders. The earlier order found that email service was reasonably calculated to provide proper notice.

The court had directed the plaintiffs to address whether email service was permitted under Rule 4(f)(3), particularly because the defaulting defendants were believed to be in China and China had objected to postal service under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3) is permitted if it is not prohibited by an international agreement and satisfies constitutional due process. The rule does not require plaintiffs to try, or courts to prefer, the other service methods listed in Rule 4(f).

The court concluded that the Hague Convention did not apply because, after reasonable diligence, the plaintiffs did not know the defendants’ addresses. The plaintiffs had served an earlier court order on the online marketplaces where the defendants operated and required those platforms to provide available contact information. Several platforms provided email addresses but no physical addresses. Amazon provided physical addresses for some defendants, but multiple conflicting addresses were supplied. The plaintiffs and their local counsel in China then conducted additional online research, mailed documents to the addresses, and made in-person visits to determine whether the addresses were accurate and usable for service.

The court also found that email service satisfied due process. Due process requires a method reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to notify interested parties about the action and give them an opportunity to object. The court found email appropriate because the defaulting defendants were online retailers that conducted their businesses primarily by email and lacked reliable physical addresses.

Disposition

The court ordered that the alternative service authorized in the earlier order was deemed effective for purposes of entering default judgment against the defaulting defendants. This order ruled on the validity of service and did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.