Amazon.com Inc v. Peng

W.D. Washington

Amazon.com Inc v. Peng

DecidedMay 2, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-00607

StatusUnknown

This text of Amazon.com Inc v. Peng (Amazon.com Inc v. Peng) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amazon.com Inc v. Peng, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 AMAZON.COM INC., et al., 9 Plaintiffs, CASE NO. C23-607-TL-BAT 10 v. PRE-SERVICE SCHEDULING ORDER 11 CAO PENG, et al., 12 Defendants.

13 Plaintiffs have initiated a civil Counterfeit Enforcement Action that is subject to General 14 Order 03-23. The Action presents issues of whether Plaintiffs can meet the service requirements 15 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, as to the manner in which service must be made and the timeliness of 16 service. The Court accordingly ORDERS: 17 1. This Order applies whether service will be completed within a judicial district of the 18 United States or in a foreign country.1 Within 90 days of the date this Order is signed, 19 Plaintiffs shall file: (a) an affidavit proving service; (b) a motion for alternative 20 service; (c) a motion requesting an extension of the time to serve, setting forth all 21

22 1 Although the 90-day time limit for service in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) “does not apply to service in a foreign country[,]” the rule “does not preclude the court from ‘setting a reasonable time limit for service in a 23 foreign country to properly manage a civil case.’” Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc’y, 153 F. Supp. 3d 1291, 1320 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (quoting Baja Devs. LLC v. TSD Loreto Partners, 2009 WL 2762050, at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 26, 2009)). 1 efforts taken over the last 90 days to serve defendants; and/or (d) a motion for pre- 2 service discovery. 3 2. If the Court grants any such motions, Plaintiffs shall, no later than 180 days from the 4 date this Order is signed, complete pre-service discovery and file: (a) an affidavit

5 proving service; or (b) a motion for an additional extension of the time to serve, 6 detailing Plaintiffs’ efforts to complete service and when they expect to complete 7 service. 8 3. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to prevent Plaintiffs from taking these 9 actions earlier than required. 10 4. If service upon all named defendants is not perfected within one year of the date of 11 this Order, the Court anticipates issuing an order to show cause why the case should 12 not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 13 DATED this 2nd day of May, 2023. 14 A

15 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 AMAZON.COM INC., et al., 9 Plaintiffs, CASE NO. C23-607-TL-BAT 10 v. PRE-SERVICE SCHEDULING ORDER 11 CAO PENG, et al., 12 Defendants.

13 Plaintiffs have initiated a civil Counterfeit Enforcement Action that is subject to General 14 Order 03-23. The Action presents issues of whether Plaintiffs can meet the service requirements 15 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, as to the manner in which service must be made and the timeliness of 16 service. The Court accordingly ORDERS: 17 1. This Order applies whether service will be completed within a judicial district of the 18 United States or in a foreign country.1 Within 90 days of the date this Order is signed, 19 Plaintiffs shall file: (a) an affidavit proving service; (b) a motion for alternative 20 service; (c) a motion requesting an extension of the time to serve, setting forth all 21

22 1 Although the 90-day time limit for service in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) “does not apply to service in a foreign country[,]” the rule “does not preclude the court from ‘setting a reasonable time limit for service in a 23 foreign country to properly manage a civil case.’” Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc’y, 153 F. Supp. 3d 1291, 1320 (W.D. Wash. 2015) (quoting Baja Devs. LLC v. TSD Loreto Partners, 2009 WL 2762050, at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 26, 2009)). 1 efforts taken over the last 90 days to serve defendants; and/or (d) a motion for pre- 2 service discovery. 3 2. If the Court grants any such motions, Plaintiffs shall, no later than 180 days from the 4 date this Order is signed, complete pre-service discovery and file: (a) an affidavit

5 proving service; or (b) a motion for an additional extension of the time to serve, 6 detailing Plaintiffs’ efforts to complete service and when they expect to complete 7 service. 8 3. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to prevent Plaintiffs from taking these 9 actions earlier than required. 10 4. If service upon all named defendants is not perfected within one year of the date of 11 this Order, the Court anticipates issuing an order to show cause why the case should 12 not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 13 DATED this 2nd day of May, 2023. 14 A

15 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Amazon.com Inc v. Peng, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amazoncom-inc-v-peng-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack