Amazon.com Inc v. KexleWaterFilters

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., CASE NO. C22-1120JLR Plaintiffs, ORDER v. KEXLEWATERFILTERS, et al., Defendants.

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

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

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

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

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, 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 work “in active concert with each other and the named Defendants.” (Id. ¶ 29.) accomplished in contravention of the laws of the foreign country.” Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dated this 31st day of May, 2023. A United States District Judge