Reported / Citable
Background
Luo Liu sued online sellers identified in Schedule A. The remaining defendants were 21 entities or individuals operating e-commerce stores on Amazon.com; three originally listed sellers had been voluntarily dismissed.
Liu initially sought permission to serve the defendants by email. The court denied that request because Liu had not identified the defendants’ physical locations or obtained their email addresses. The court allowed him to renew the motion with a sworn declaration supplying that information.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Peter Bray granted Liu’s renewed ex parte motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). Liu’s counsel declared that Amazon provided physical and email addresses for each defendant, that the email addresses were valid and working, and that the physical addresses were in China, though counsel could not independently verify them.
The court held that email service was not prohibited by the Hague Convention. Although China has objected to certain Article 10 methods, it has not expressly objected to email service. On these facts, service at the active Amazon-associated email addresses was reasonably calculated to give the defendants notice and satisfied due process.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 4(f)(3) permits court-ordered alternative service without requiring a plaintiff first to exhaust other service methods.
- China’s objections to Hague Convention Article 10 did not bar court-authorized email service here.
- Evidence that the proposed addresses are valid and working can establish that email service is reasonably calculated to provide notice.
Why It Matters
The order shows that a plaintiff seeking email service on foreign online sellers must support the request with concrete evidence connecting each defendant to a functioning email address. That evidence resolved the deficiencies that led the court to deny Liu’s first motion.
For cases involving China-based e-commerce defendants, the decision treats email service under Rule 4(f)(3) as available when it is not prohibited by international agreement and the particular facts satisfy due process.