Spin Master Ltd. and Spin Master Toys UK Limited v. Chakaruna4169 et.al.

Background

The court had previously scheduled a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment. It postponed that hearing so the plaintiffs could provide additional briefing about whether service on defendants associated with China was proper. The court later stayed the case while an appeal in a related case concerning service under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters was pending. After the Second Circuit dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction, the court lifted the stay and directed the plaintiffs to report on efforts to confirm defendants’ addresses through third-party discovery.

Address and Service Information

The plaintiffs reported that, of twenty remaining defendants, third-party discovery identified four addresses listed in China and sixteen addresses listed in Sri Lanka. The plaintiffs stated that they could confirm the authenticity of the address associated with only one China defendant, zhou9982. They could not confirm the accuracy of the Sri Lanka addresses generally. For four Sri Lanka defendants—chamitlasith-0, rajithalakruwan, shesi_55, and sithum_malllk—the plaintiffs matched addresses supplied by two different service providers.

The court directed the plaintiffs to be prepared to explain the propriety of service on both groups of defendants. In particular, the court identified questions about why the plaintiffs believed the Sri Lanka addresses were invalid and whether the addresses associated with zhou9982, chamitlasith-0, rajithalakruwan, shesi_55, and sithum_malllk were sufficiently valid for the Hague Convention to apply. If the plaintiffs believed the Hague Convention applied, the court required them to address whether service by electronic means was valid under that convention.

Order

The court rescheduled the default-judgment hearing for August 14, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., by telephone. It directed plaintiffs’ counsel to be prepared to discuss communications with defendants, any intent to challenge the lawsuit, the alleged conduct underlying the lawsuit, service of the summons and complaint and the order, defendants’ notice of the hearing, and the method for calculating damages.

The plaintiffs had already filed their default-judgment motion and supporting memorandum. Although defendants had missed the earlier response deadline, the court allowed them to respond by June 16, 2023, and allowed the plaintiffs to reply by June 23, 2023. The court also permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended supplemental brief by July 1, 2023, addressing service in Sri Lanka, the steps taken to verify each Sri Lanka defendant’s address, and whether further address information changed the plaintiffs’ position about the Hague Convention.

Finally, the court ordered the plaintiffs to serve the order on defendants through the means approved in the preliminary-injunction order by June 5, 2023, and to certify that service by June 7, 2023. The order did not decide the default-judgment motion.