Shen Zhen You Yu Ku Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si v. Jiangsu Huari Webbing Leather Co.
Shen Zhen You Yu Ku Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si v. Jiangsu Huari Webbing Leather Co., Ltd.
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-04578
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Shen Zhen v. Jiangsu Huari, Judge Clarke denied email service because Plaintiff had not shown reasonable diligence locating Defendant’s physical address.
The ruling directly affects Shen Zhen You Yu Ku Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si’s ability to serve Jiangsu Huari Webbing Leather Co., Ltd. by email. The motion was denied, but the plaintiff may renew it after showing reasonable diligence in searching for the defendant’s physical address.
What happened
Shen Zhen You Yu Ku Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si v. Jiangsu Huari Webbing Leather Co., Ltd. concerns the plaintiff’s request to serve the defendant, allegedly a company in China, by email instead of through the usual international process.
The court said service had to follow the Hague Convention, which generally prohibits email service on litigants in China. An exception may apply when the defendant’s address is unknown, but the plaintiff had not shown that it reasonably tried to find the defendant’s physical address.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke denied the motion, with leave to renew if the plaintiff later shows reasonable diligence in searching for the defendant’s physical address. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Shen Zhen You Yu Ku Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si v. Jiangsu Huari Webbing Leather Co. · No. 1:23-cv-04578
- Clarke
- Sept. 12, 2023
Background
Plaintiff Shen Zhen You Yu Ku Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) for permission to serve Defendant Jiangsu Huari Webbing Leather Co., Ltd. by email. The opinion describes Jiangsu as allegedly a resident of China.
Legal standard
Rule 4(f) provides methods for serving an individual or entity outside the United States. Rule 4(f)(3) permits service by means that are not prohibited by an international agreement. The United States and China are parties to the Hague Convention on service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil and commercial matters. The court explained that the Hague Convention generally prohibits service by email on litigants in China.
The court also explained that the Hague Convention does not apply when the address of the person or entity to be served is not known. An address is considered unknown when the plaintiff has exercised reasonable diligence—that is, made reasonable efforts—to find a physical address but was unsuccessful.
Discussion
The court held that service had to comply with the Hague Convention because Plaintiff had not shown that it made the necessary effort to find Defendant’s physical address. Plaintiff stated only that it was trying to find other email addresses for Defendant and did not identify any effort to locate a physical address. The court concluded that this was not reasonable diligence.
Disposition
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke DENIED Plaintiff’s motion, with leave to renew upon a showing that Plaintiff has exercised reasonable diligence in searching for Defendant’s physical address. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 8. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims between the parties.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.