Amazon.com Inc v. KexleWaterFilters

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., CASE NO. C22-1120JLR 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. 12 KEXLEWATERFILTERS, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Before the court is Plaintiffs Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC 17 (together, “Amazon”), General Electric Company, and Haier US Appliance Solutions, 18 Inc.’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) ex parte renewed motion for alternative service of 19 process. (Mot. (Dkt. # 25).) As they did in their first motion for alternative service of 20 process (see 2/7/23 Mot. (Dkt. # 18); 2/15/23 Order (Dkt. # 22) (denying Plaintiffs’ first 21 // 22 // 1 motion)), Plaintiffs seek leave to serve 16 named Defendants1 using the email addresses 2 associated with their Amazon Selling Accounts (see generally Mot.). Plaintiffs have

3 been unable to identify accurate business addresses for Defendants and believe that 4 Defendants are located in China. (See 2/15/23 Order at 2-4 (describing Plaintiffs’ efforts 5 to obtain information about Defendants’ identities and locations).) The court has 6 considered the motion, all materials submitted in support of the motion, the relevant 7 portions of the record, and the governing law. Being fully advised, the court GRANTS 8 Plaintiffs’ ex parte renewed motion for alternative service of process.

9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) governs service of process on foreign 10 businesses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h). Rule 4(h)(2) authorizes service of process on a foreign 11 corporation “at a place not within any judicial district of the United States, in any manner 12 prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving an individual, except personal delivery under 13 (f)(2)(C)(i).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(2). Rules 4(f)(1) and 4(f)(2) provide specific methods

14 of serving process on individuals in foreign countries. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1)-(2). 15 Rule 4(f)(3) allows international service by a method not listed in Rule 4(f)(1) or (2) if 16 the method is “not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.” Fed. R. 17 Civ. P. 4(f)(3). As long as the method of service is “court-directed and not prohibited by 18 an international agreement, service of process ordered under Rule 4(f)(3) may be

20 1 These Defendants are the individuals and entities doing business as the following Amazon Selling Accounts: KexleWaterFilters, HOM-POWER Store, NO-MIIMS, CLANORY, Tomorrow-Citystor, HOMASZ, Romarotic, Dropsales, Tamei-US, DanielJames, icepy, 21 WanHaoFilter, HNAMZ-US, DOOBOO-US, Purtech, and Barcelona-US. (Compl. (Dkt. # 1) ¶¶ 13-28.) Plaintiffs also allege claims against ten unknown Doe Defendants whom they allege 22 work “in active concert with each other and the named Defendants.” (Id. ¶ 29.) 1 accomplished in contravention of the laws of the foreign country.” Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio 2 Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002).

3 “Even if facially permitted by Rule 4(f)(3),” however, “a method of service of 4 process must also comport with constitutional notions of due process.” Id. at 1016. 5 Thus, the “method of service crafted by the district court must be ‘reasonably calculated, 6 under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and 7 afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’” Id. at 1016-17 (quoting Mullane 8 v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). Thus, before authorizing

9 alternative service of process by email, the court must be satisfied that service by email 10 (1) is permitted under Rule 4(f)(3) and (2) comports with due process. 11 In its February 15, 2023 order denying Plaintiffs’ first motion for alternative 12 service of process, the court determined that service of process by email to defendants in 13 China is permitted under Rule 4(f)(3) but Plaintiffs had not shown that serving

14 Defendants by email would comport with due process. (2/15/23 Order at 6-10.) After 15 reviewing recent case law, the court concluded that “the due process requirement for 16 alternative service by email is satisfied when the plaintiff demonstrates that the email 17 addresses at issue are valid and are successfully receiving messages.” (Id. at 8-9 18 (discussing multiple cases).) The court denied Plaintiffs’ motion because Plaintiffs had

19 not demonstrated that the email addresses associated with Defendants’ Amazon Selling 20 Accounts were still valid and that service of process by email would be likely to provide 21 Defendants with notice of this lawsuit. (Id. at 9-10.) The court instructed Plaintiffs that 22 they could renew their motion with evidence that email to Defendants’ Amazon Selling 1 Account email addresses remains a reliable means of communicating with Defendants. 2 (Id. at 10.)

3 Since the court issued that order, Plaintiffs have sent test emails to the email 4 addresses that Defendants used when they registered for their Amazon Selling Accounts. 5 (Mot. at 2; Lewis Decl. (Dkt. # 26) ¶¶ 8-9.) These email addresses are the primary means 6 of communication between Amazon and Defendants. (Haskell Decl. (Dkt. # 20) ¶ 6.) 7 The test emails provided notice of this lawsuit and included the summons and complaint 8 as attachments. (Lewis Decl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs found that at least one email address

9 registered by each Defendant remains functional. (Id. (stating that Plaintiffs received no 10 error notices or bounce-back messages with respect to the test emails); id. ¶ 10 (listing the 11 functioning email address for each Defendant).) 12 Based on these facts, the court concludes that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the 13 email addresses associated with Defendants’ Selling Accounts are still valid and that

14 service of process by email to those addresses is likely to provide Defendants notice of 15 this lawsuit. As a result, the court is satisfied that Plaintiffs’ proposed alternative method 16 of service comports with due process requirements. (See 2/15/23 Order at 9-10.) 17 Accordingly, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ ex parte renewed motion for alternative 18 service of process (Dkt. # 25) and AUTHORIZES Plaintiffs to effect service on

19 Defendants by emailing the summons and complaint to Defendants using the email 20 // 21 // 22 // 1 addresses associated with their Amazon Selling Accounts. The court further ORDERS 2 Plaintiffs to advise the court of the status of service by no later than June 30, 2023.

3 Dated this 31st day of May, 2023. 4 A 5 6 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22