Fox Shiver LLC v. Individuals
Fox Shiver LLC v. Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A to the Complaint
- James Oetken
- 1:23-cv-01898
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Fox Shiver LLC v. Individuals, Judge Oetken directed electronic service after finding Fox Shiver had diligently sought physical addresses that remained unknown.
Fox Shiver LLC and the defendants listed in the excerpt to the amended Schedule A, particularly those whose physical addresses were unknown or could not be verified.
What happened
In Fox Shiver LLC v. Individuals, Fox Shiver asked to serve defendants located in China by email or online publication. The court had previously denied that request and required Fox Shiver to investigate the defendants’ physical addresses.
Fox Shiver reported that Alibaba did not provide addresses, but that further research and a third-party investigation service identified addresses for 70 defendants. AliExpress and DHGate provided no physical addresses. Although Temu and Wish provided information for five other defendants, Fox Shiver said it could not verify the information and mailed correspondence had not been delivered.
The court found that Fox Shiver had made reasonable efforts, that the physical addresses of the defendants listed in the excerpt to the amended schedule were not known, and that the Hague Convention did not apply. Judge Oetken directed Fox Shiver to serve those defendants electronically without delay.
The detailed version
- Fox Shiver LLC v. Individuals · No. 1:23-cv-01898
- James Oetken
- Oct. 13, 2023
Background
The court previously denied Fox Shiver LLC’s request to serve defendants located in China by email or online publication. It directed online marketplace services—including Alibaba, AliExpress, DHGate, eBay, Etsy, Walmart, Wish, and Temu—to provide identifying information about the defendants. The court later denied Fox Shiver’s request to reconsider that decision and required status updates about its efforts to obtain the defendants’ addresses.
Analysis
The court had explained that the Hague Convention, an international agreement governing service of legal documents, does not apply when the person’s address is unknown. It also required Fox Shiver to show that it had made reasonable efforts to identify the defendants’ physical locations.
Fox Shiver reported that Alibaba did not provide addresses, but that Fox Shiver identified addresses for 70 Alibaba defendants in China through additional research and a third-party investigation service specializing in due diligence in Asia. AliExpress and DHGate also did not provide physical addresses. The court found that electronic service was appropriate for those defendants because Fox Shiver had no other way to obtain their physical addresses.
Wish and Temu provided addresses for five defendants. However, Fox Shiver reported that its investigation service could not determine the account holders’ true names or verify the reported information. Fox Shiver also reported that mailed correspondence to those five defendants had not been successfully delivered. The court concluded that further mailing delays and the uncertainty about the addresses supported electronic service.
Ruling
The court concluded that Fox Shiver had exercised reasonable diligence, that the physical addresses of the defendants listed in the excerpt to the amended Schedule A were not known, and that the Hague Convention was therefore inapplicable to those defendants. The court directed Fox Shiver to effect electronic service on all defendants listed in that excerpt without delay. The order addressed service of process and did not decide the underlying claims.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it concerns the method of serving defendants and does not resolve the merits of Fox Shiver’s claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.