Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Bryttani Curnutt alleged that she suffered chemical burns and other injuries while using Teenitor-brand nail glue to apply press-on nails. She asserted twelve causes of action seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief against Amazon-related entities, Teenitor, and other defendants.
After unsuccessful attempts to serve Teenitor at physical addresses in Texas and New York, Curnutt obtained court authorization under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) to serve Shenzhen Sunshine Pie Technology Co., Ltd./Teenitor/Zhang Jing through two email addresses listed in USPTO records and through Teenitor’s Amazon Seller Portal. Teenitor moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5), principally arguing that China’s objection to postal service under Article 10 of the Hague Convention also barred service by email.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Teenitor’s motion to dismiss. Applying Fifth Circuit precedent, the court held that court-ordered email service on a Chinese defendant may be proper under Rule 4(f)(3) when it is reasonably calculated to provide notice and is not prohibited by an international agreement. The court concluded that China’s Hague Convention objections did not prohibit the electronic service authorized here.
The court also determined that the Hague Convention did not apply because Teenitor’s physical address remained unknown despite Curnutt’s reasonable diligence. The record showed repeated efforts to locate and serve Teenitor, including attempted service through a purported U.S. agent and research into USPTO records. Given Teenitor’s online business and the verified electronic contact channels, service by email and through the Amazon Seller Portal was reasonably calculated to reach it.
Key Takeaways
- Under Fifth Circuit precedent, Rule 4(f)(3) can permit court-ordered email service on a Chinese defendant when no international agreement prohibits that method.
- The Hague Convention does not apply when the defendant’s address is unknown, but a plaintiff must exercise reasonable diligence in trying to discover it.
- Repeated failed physical-service attempts, reliable electronic contact information, and the defendant’s e-commerce operations supported alternative electronic service in this case.
Why It Matters
The ruling provides a practical path for serving foreign e-commerce sellers whose physical locations cannot be confirmed. In the Fifth Circuit, China’s objection to Hague Convention service through postal channels does not by itself foreclose court-authorized service by email.
The decision also underscores the importance of documenting efforts to locate and serve a foreign defendant. Curnutt’s repeated attempts, USPTO-record research, and use of communication channels associated with Teenitor’s online business allowed the case to proceed despite uncertainty about Teenitor’s physical address and the court’s observation that Teenitor apparently had actual notice of the suit.