Smart Study Co., LTD. v. Acuteye-US
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-05860
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Smart Study Co., LTD. v. Acuteye-US, Judge Woods dismissed claims against two defendants without prejudice for failure to complete service.
Smart Study Co., LTD. and the two defendants whose service was found inadequate; the court directed that the case be closed.
What happened
In Smart Study Co., LTD. v. Acuteye-US, the court addressed whether Smart Study had properly served two defendants located abroad.
The court had previously explained that the defendants’ addresses were known but that Smart Study had not served them at their physical addresses under the treaty governing service of court papers abroad. Smart Study maintained that it had properly used another method allowed by the federal rules, and its lawyer confirmed that Smart Study would not use the treaty’s procedures.
The court dismissed Smart Study’s claims against those two defendants without prejudice for failure to serve them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f). Judge Gregory H. Woods denied any further extension of time for service and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Smart Study Co., LTD. v. Acuteye-US · No. 1:21-cv-05860
- Gregory Woods
- Jan. 4, 2024
Background
Smart Study Co., LTD. sued Acuteye-US and others. The order concerns two defendants identified in the opinion as changgeshangmaoyouxiangongsi and shenzhenshixindajixieyouxiangongsi. The court had previously explained, in a July 21, 2022 opinion and at an October 25, 2023 hearing, that Smart Study had not served these defendants at their physical addresses under the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, commonly called the Hague Convention. The court stated that the defendants’ addresses were known to Smart Study.
On November 20, 2023, the court ordered Smart Study to explain why the action should not be dismissed for failure to serve process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f). Smart Study repeated its position that the defendants had been properly served through alternative methods authorized by Rule 4(f)(3). At a January 4, 2024 conference, Smart Study’s counsel stated on the record that Smart Study would not serve the two defendants under the Hague Convention.
Reasoning
The court concluded that no further extensions of time for service were warranted. It relied on its earlier reasoning and stated that claims against the two defendants could be dismissed for failure to serve them under Rule 4(f). The order also discussed the rule governing the usual deadline for service and authorities explaining that the exclusion for service in a foreign country does not give a plaintiff unlimited time to complete service.
Ruling
The court dismissed Smart Study’s claims against changgeshanemaoyouxiangongsi and shenzhenshixindajixieyouxiangongsi without prejudice for failure to serve them under Rule 4(f). The court directed Smart Study’s counsel to serve the order on the defendants and retain proof of service. The clerk was directed to close the case. Judge Gregory H. Woods entered the order on January 4, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.