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 ordered the plaintiffs to explain whether email service was proper and whether default proceedings should await an appeal.
Spin Master Ltd. and Spin Master Toys UK Limited were required to provide supplemental information concerning service and a possible pause in default judgment proceedings; the order also affected the timing of proceedings involving the named defendants.
What happened
In Spin Master Ltd. and Spin Master Toys UK Limited v. Chakaruna4169 et al., the court addressed how the case should proceed before considering default judgment.
The court had previously asked the plaintiffs to explain whether they properly served the defendants by email under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f). The court noted that the Second Circuit was considering a related question involving email service on a defendant residing in China.
On December 15, 2022, Judge John P. Cronan directed the plaintiffs to tell the court by December 19 whether default judgment proceedings should be paused until the Second Circuit resolves that issue. The order did not decide whether service was valid or whether the proceedings would be stayed.
The detailed version
- Spin Master Ltd. and Spin Master Toys UK Limited v. Chakaruna4169 et.al. · No. 1:22-cv-00553
- John Cronan
- Dec. 15, 2022
Background
On July 27, 2022, the Court directed Spin Master Ltd. and Spin Master Toys UK Limited to file supplemental briefing about whether they properly served the defendants with the summons and Complaint by email under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f), which governs service on individuals in foreign countries. The Court issued that direction in light of a recent decision by another judge of the Southern District of New York concerning email service.
The order stated that the validity of serving a defendant residing in China by email was pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on an interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal taken before the case is fully resolved.
Order
The Court directed the plaintiffs to inform it by December 19, 2022, whether the Court should stay, or pause, the default judgment proceedings in this case until the Second Circuit resolves the related service issue. The order did not rule on whether service by email was valid, did not grant or deny a stay, and did not enter default judgment.
Effect
The order required the plaintiffs to provide their views on whether the case's default judgment proceedings should be paused. It did not resolve the underlying service question or determine the defendants' liability.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.