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 motion for leave to file an amended complaint 19 and for alternative service of process. (Mot. (Dkt. # 31).) Plaintiffs seek leave to amend 20 their complaint to add ten new Defendants whom they identified through expedited 21 discovery conducted in accordance with the court’s October 26, 2022 order. (Id. at 1, 22 2-6; Redlined Prop. Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 32-1); Prop. Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 32-2); see 1 10/26/22 Order (Dkt. # 14) (granting expedited discovery).) They also seek leave to 2 serve the ten new Defendants by email. (Mot. at 1, 6-7; see 5/31/23 Order (Dkt. # 27)
3 (authorizing service on the original 16 Defendants by email).) Although the original 4 Defendants have been served, none have appeared in this action. (See Cert. of Service 5 (Dkt. # 28) (stating that Plaintiffs successfully served the original Defendants); see 6 generally Dkt.) Being fully advised, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for 7 leave to amend their complaint and DENIES their motion for alternative service of 8 process.
9 II. BACKGROUND 10 The court set forth the relevant background regarding this case and the 16 original 11 Defendants in its orders on Plaintiffs’ motions for leave to serve the original Defendants 12 by email. (See 2/15/23 Order (Dkt. # 22) at 2-5; 5/31/23 Order at 3-4.) Therefore, the 13 court focuses here on the background relevant to Plaintiffs’ current motion.
14 In their original complaint, Plaintiffs named as Defendants 16 Amazon Selling 15 Accounts,1 in addition to ten unknown Doe Defendants whom they alleged work “in 16 active concert with each other and the named Defendants” to advertise, market, and sell 17 counterfeit General Electric-branded water filters in the Amazon Store. (See Compl. 18 (Dkt. # 1) ¶¶ 7, 13-29.) Plaintiffs assert that they have now identified the individuals
19 associated with ten of these Amazon Selling Accounts by matching information and 20
1 These Amazon Selling Accounts are KexleWaterFilters, HOM-POWER Store, 21 NO-MIIMS, CLANORY, Tomorrow-Citystor, HOMASZ, Romarotic, Dropsales, Tamei-US, DanielJames, icepy, WanHaoFilter, HNAMZ-US, DOOBOO-US, Purtech, and Barcelona-US. 22 (Compl. (Dkt. # 1) ¶¶ 13-29.) 1 documents received in response to a third-party subpoena issued to Defendants’ payment 2 service provider with information in Amazon’s internal records. (Buckley Decl. (Dkt.
3 # 32) ¶ 2; see Prop. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14-39.2) These records indicate that the individuals 4 are located “primarily in China.” (Id.) 5 III. ANALYSIS 6 The court first considers Plaintiffs’ motion to amend, then turns to Plaintiffs’ 7 motion for leave to serve the new Defendants by email. 8 A. Motion to Amend
9 Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their complaint to add the ten newly-identified 10 individuals as Defendants. (Mot. at 2-7.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states 11 that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend the complaint] when justice so 12 requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Courts consider five factors when assessing a motion 13 for leave to amend: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party,
14 (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether the party has previously amended its pleading. 15 Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Ascon Props., Inc. 16 v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989)). The court finds no evidence in 17 the record to indicate bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or futility of amendment; and 18 Plaintiffs have not previously amended their complaint. Accordingly, the court
20 2 These individuals are Yue Xuan, doing business as HOM-POWER Store; Wang NianQi, doing business as NO-MIIMS; Deng Yi, doing business as Romarotic; Tan Mei, doing business as Tamei-US; Dao Ping Yang, doing business as icepy; Zheng Li, doing business as 21 WanHaoFilter; Fang Jie Li, doing business as HNAMZ-US; Wang Chun Xia, doing business as DOOBOO-US; Liping Yang, doing business as Purtech; and Liu Ying Lian, doing business as 22 Barcelona-US. (Id.) 1 GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to add the ten individuals whom they 2 allege are associated with the Defendant Amazon Selling Accounts as new Defendants.
3 B. Motion to Serve by Email 4 Plaintiffs ask the court for leave to serve the new individual Defendants by email 5 using the email addresses for the Amazon Selling Accounts with which those individuals 6 are associated. (Mot. at 6.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) governs service of 7 process on foreign businesses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h). Rule 4(h)(2) authorizes service of 8 process on a foreign corporation “at a place not within any judicial district of the United
9 States, in any manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving an individual, except personal 10 delivery under (f)(2)(C)(i).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(2). Rules 4(f)(1) and 4(f)(2) provide 11 specific methods of serving process on individuals in foreign countries. See Fed. R. Civ. 12 P. 4(f)(1)-(2). Rule 4(f)(3) allows international service by a method not listed in Rule 13 4(f)(1) or (2) if the method is “not prohibited by international agreement, as the court
14 orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). As long as the method of service is “court-directed and 15 not prohibited by an international agreement, service of process ordered under Rule 16 4(f)(3) may be accomplished in contravention of the laws of the foreign country.” Rio 17 Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). The court has 18 previously concluded that Rule 4(f)(3) permits service by email to defendants in China.
19 (See 2/15/23 Order at 6-8.) 20 “Even if facially permitted by Rule 4(f)(3),” however, “a method of service of 21 process must also comport with constitutional notions of due process.” Rio Props., 284 22 F.3d at 1016. The “method of service crafted by the district court must be ‘reasonably 1 calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of 2 the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’” Id. at 1016-17
3 (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). The 4 court has previously concluded that the due process requirement for alternative service by 5 email is satisfied when the plaintiff demonstrates that the email addresses at issue are 6 valid and are successfully receiving messages.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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 motion for leave to file an amended complaint 19 and for alternative service of process. (Mot. (Dkt. # 31).) Plaintiffs seek leave to amend 20 their complaint to add ten new Defendants whom they identified through expedited 21 discovery conducted in accordance with the court’s October 26, 2022 order. (Id. at 1, 22 2-6; Redlined Prop. Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 32-1); Prop. Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 32-2); see 1 10/26/22 Order (Dkt. # 14) (granting expedited discovery).) They also seek leave to 2 serve the ten new Defendants by email. (Mot. at 1, 6-7; see 5/31/23 Order (Dkt. # 27)
3 (authorizing service on the original 16 Defendants by email).) Although the original 4 Defendants have been served, none have appeared in this action. (See Cert. of Service 5 (Dkt. # 28) (stating that Plaintiffs successfully served the original Defendants); see 6 generally Dkt.) Being fully advised, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for 7 leave to amend their complaint and DENIES their motion for alternative service of 8 process.
9 II. BACKGROUND 10 The court set forth the relevant background regarding this case and the 16 original 11 Defendants in its orders on Plaintiffs’ motions for leave to serve the original Defendants 12 by email. (See 2/15/23 Order (Dkt. # 22) at 2-5; 5/31/23 Order at 3-4.) Therefore, the 13 court focuses here on the background relevant to Plaintiffs’ current motion.
14 In their original complaint, Plaintiffs named as Defendants 16 Amazon Selling 15 Accounts,1 in addition to ten unknown Doe Defendants whom they alleged work “in 16 active concert with each other and the named Defendants” to advertise, market, and sell 17 counterfeit General Electric-branded water filters in the Amazon Store. (See Compl. 18 (Dkt. # 1) ¶¶ 7, 13-29.) Plaintiffs assert that they have now identified the individuals
19 associated with ten of these Amazon Selling Accounts by matching information and 20
1 These Amazon Selling Accounts are KexleWaterFilters, HOM-POWER Store, 21 NO-MIIMS, CLANORY, Tomorrow-Citystor, HOMASZ, Romarotic, Dropsales, Tamei-US, DanielJames, icepy, WanHaoFilter, HNAMZ-US, DOOBOO-US, Purtech, and Barcelona-US. 22 (Compl. (Dkt. # 1) ¶¶ 13-29.) 1 documents received in response to a third-party subpoena issued to Defendants’ payment 2 service provider with information in Amazon’s internal records. (Buckley Decl. (Dkt.
3 # 32) ¶ 2; see Prop. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14-39.2) These records indicate that the individuals 4 are located “primarily in China.” (Id.) 5 III. ANALYSIS 6 The court first considers Plaintiffs’ motion to amend, then turns to Plaintiffs’ 7 motion for leave to serve the new Defendants by email. 8 A. Motion to Amend
9 Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their complaint to add the ten newly-identified 10 individuals as Defendants. (Mot. at 2-7.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) states 11 that “[t]he court should freely give leave [to amend the complaint] when justice so 12 requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Courts consider five factors when assessing a motion 13 for leave to amend: (1) bad faith, (2) undue delay, (3) prejudice to the opposing party,
14 (4) futility of amendment, and (5) whether the party has previously amended its pleading. 15 Allen v. City of Beverly Hills, 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Ascon Props., Inc. 16 v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989)). The court finds no evidence in 17 the record to indicate bad faith, undue delay, prejudice, or futility of amendment; and 18 Plaintiffs have not previously amended their complaint. Accordingly, the court
20 2 These individuals are Yue Xuan, doing business as HOM-POWER Store; Wang NianQi, doing business as NO-MIIMS; Deng Yi, doing business as Romarotic; Tan Mei, doing business as Tamei-US; Dao Ping Yang, doing business as icepy; Zheng Li, doing business as 21 WanHaoFilter; Fang Jie Li, doing business as HNAMZ-US; Wang Chun Xia, doing business as DOOBOO-US; Liping Yang, doing business as Purtech; and Liu Ying Lian, doing business as 22 Barcelona-US. (Id.) 1 GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to add the ten individuals whom they 2 allege are associated with the Defendant Amazon Selling Accounts as new Defendants.
3 B. Motion to Serve by Email 4 Plaintiffs ask the court for leave to serve the new individual Defendants by email 5 using the email addresses for the Amazon Selling Accounts with which those individuals 6 are associated. (Mot. at 6.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) governs service of 7 process on foreign businesses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h). Rule 4(h)(2) authorizes service of 8 process on a foreign corporation “at a place not within any judicial district of the United
9 States, in any manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving an individual, except personal 10 delivery under (f)(2)(C)(i).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(2). Rules 4(f)(1) and 4(f)(2) provide 11 specific methods of serving process on individuals in foreign countries. See Fed. R. Civ. 12 P. 4(f)(1)-(2). Rule 4(f)(3) allows international service by a method not listed in Rule 13 4(f)(1) or (2) if the method is “not prohibited by international agreement, as the court
14 orders.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). As long as the method of service is “court-directed and 15 not prohibited by an international agreement, service of process ordered under Rule 16 4(f)(3) may be accomplished in contravention of the laws of the foreign country.” Rio 17 Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). The court has 18 previously concluded that Rule 4(f)(3) permits service by email to defendants in China.
19 (See 2/15/23 Order at 6-8.) 20 “Even if facially permitted by Rule 4(f)(3),” however, “a method of service of 21 process must also comport with constitutional notions of due process.” Rio Props., 284 22 F.3d at 1016. The “method of service crafted by the district court must be ‘reasonably 1 calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of 2 the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’” Id. at 1016-17
3 (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). The 4 court has previously concluded that the due process requirement for alternative service by 5 email is satisfied when the plaintiff demonstrates that the email addresses at issue are 6 valid and are successfully receiving messages. (2/15/23 Order at 8-9 (discussing multiple 7 cases).) Thus, Plaintiffs must provide evidence that email messages sent to the email 8 addresses associated with the original Defendants’ Amazon Selling Accounts provide a
9 reliable means of communicating with the new Defendants and are likely to provide the 10 new Defendants with notice of this lawsuit. (See id. at 9-10 (denying Plaintiffs’ first 11 motion for leave to serve the original Defendants by email because they had not made 12 this required showing); 5/31/23 Order at 4-5 (granting Plaintiffs’ second motion for leave 13 to serve the original Defendants by email after they provided evidence that the email
14 addresses associated with the Amazon Selling Accounts were still valid and receiving 15 messages).) 16 Plaintiffs assert that service by email to the new individual Defendants comports 17 with due process because they have already (1) demonstrated that the email addresses 18 associated with the relevant Amazon Selling Accounts are valid and receiving messages
19 and (2) successfully served the original Defendants by email. (Mot. at 6.) Plaintiffs, 20 however, do not appear to have sent email messages to those email addresses since they 21 effected service by email on June 6, 2023. (See Cert. of Service at 1.) Because it has 22 been nearly four months since Plaintiffs tested the validity of those email addresses, the 1 court is not satisfied that email to those addresses remains a reliable means of contacting 2 the individuals associated with the Amazon Selling Accounts. As a result, the court
3 DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve the ten new Defendants without prejudice 4 to renewing their motion with evidence that the email addresses associated with the 5 relevant Amazon Selling Accounts remain valid. 6 IV. CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part 8 Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion for leave to file an amended complaint and for alternative
9 service (Dkt. # 31). The court ORDERS as follows: 10 (1) Plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall 11 file their first amended complaint by no later than October 6, 2023; and 12 (2) Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve the ten new Defendants by email is 13 DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs may renew their motion with evidence that the
14 email addresses associated with the relevant Amazon Selling Accounts remain valid. 15 Dated this 29th day of September, 2023. 16 A 17 18 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 19 20 21 22