Amazon.com Inc v. Wong

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., CASE NO. C19-0990JLR Plaintiffs, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. CHUN WONG, et al., Defendants.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide the court with various tools “to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the calendars of the District Courts.” Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)). Specifically, as the court has previously reminded Plaintiffs Amazon.com, Inc. and Nite Ize, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 requires a plaintiff to serve the defendant with a summons and a copy of the complaint and sets forth the specific requirements for doing so. (See OSC (Dkt. # 8) at 1-2 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. Rule 4(m)).) And Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows the court, on its own motion, to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice for failure to comply with the Rules or for want of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Link, 370 U.S. at 629 (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a

plaintiff’s action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.”). Plaintiffs filed this action more than two years ago and named as Defendants Chun Wong, Adam Jones, Jacky Likens, Shenzhen Haiming Limited, Hu Nan Yun Dong Limited, James Lee, Steve Max, Zack Grey, Jeffrey Hall, Derek Wilson, and Jacob Smith

(collectively, “Defendants”). (Compl. (Dkt. # 1) ¶¶ 10-20.) After Plaintiffs failed to serve Defendants within the time allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, the court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with that rule. (OSC at 2.) Plaintiffs responded and advised the court of their difficulties serving Defendants, requested additional time to complete service, and

indicated that they would seek authorization to serve Defendants by e-mail. (OSC Resp. (Dkt. # 9) at 1-4.) Plaintiffs further represented that, with respect to Shenzhen Haiming Limited and Hu Nan Yun Dong Limited, they requested service through the Hong Kong government on July 15, 2019 and expected a response later that year. (OSC Resp. at 2; Alt. Service Mot. (Dkt. # 11) at 4 n.1.)

With leave of the court, Plaintiffs served the nine individuals named in the complaint by e-mail. (See 11/12/19 Order (Dkt. # 14) (permitting service by e-mail); 11/25/19 Affidavit of Service (Dkt. # 15) (indicating that Messrs. Grey, Hall, Jones, Likens, Max, Smith, Wilson, Wong, and Lee were served with the complaint on November 20, 2019).) Thereafter, Plaintiffs added Mr. Jiang and Mr. Bao as Defendants. (Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 31) ¶¶ 21-22.) With assistance from the Attorney General of Canada, Mr. Wong, Mr. Jiang, and Mr. Bao were served with the amended complaint in

April 2021. (See 5/17/21 Buono Decl. (Dkt. # 36) ¶ 3 (notifying the court that Mr. Jiang was served on April 12, 2021); 6/22/21 Buono Decl. (Dkt. # 39) ¶ 3 (notifying the court that Mr. Wong was served on April 12, 2021); 6/23/21 Buono Decl. (Dkt. # 40) ¶ 3 (notifying the court that Mr. Bao was served on April 6, 2021).) Thus, as of April 12, 2021, Plaintiffs had successfully served all of the individual Defendants. It does not

appear that either Shenzhen Haiming Limited or Hu Nan Yun Dong Limited have been served yet (see generally Dkt.), and it is not clear whether Plaintiffs have taken further steps to perfect service. To date, however, only Mr. Wong has appeared through counsel and filed an answer. (See Not. (Dkt. # 35); Answer (Dkt. # 41).) Plaintiffs have obtained orders of

default against Messrs. Grey, Hall, Jones, Likens, Max, Smith, Wilson, and Lee (6/4/21 Order (Dkt. # 38)) but have not sought to reduce those orders to judgment (see generally Dkt.). Nor have Defendants moved for an order of default against Mr. Bao and Mr. Jiang, although neither has appeared or answered the complaint. (Id.) Accordingly, the court ORDERS Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days

of the date of this order why this action should not be dismissed, except as to Defendant Chun Wong, based on Defendants’ failure to: (1) serve Defendants Shenzhen Haiming Limited and Hu Nan Yun Dong Limited, as required by Rule 4; and (2) diligently prosecute the action against Defendants Messrs. Grey, Hall, Jones, Likens, Max, Smith, Wilson, Lee, Jiang, and Bao.

Dated this 25th day of October, 2021. A

United States District Court Judge