Cong v. Zhao

W.D. Washington

Cong v. Zhao

DecidedJuly 31, 2023

Docket2:21-cv-01703

StatusUnknown

This text of Cong v. Zhao (Cong v. Zhao) 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

Cong v. Zhao, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 FANG CONG, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-01703-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 13 XUE ZHAO, 14 Defendant. 15

17 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On July 20, 2023, this Court ordered 18 Plaintiff to file a status report indicating any developments regarding service through China’s 19 Central Authority. Dkt. No. 17. Since then, Plaintiff has filed two status reports. Dkt. Nos. 18, 20 19. In the second report on July 29, Plaintiff states that the Central Authority has closed her case 21 and the documents were not served because the address provided does not exist. Dkt. No. 19 at 1; 22 see Dkt. No. 19-1 (certificate from Central Authority). Plaintiff also expresses a wish for 23 alternative service options. Dkt. No. 19 at 1. This Court previously stated that Plaintiff “may file 24 a new motion seeking alternative service six months after making a proper request to the Central 1 Authority.” Dkt. No. 15 at 3. “The motion for alternative service should include enough detail 2 for the Court to determine that Plaintiff followed the procedures required by the Central 3 Authority, and—if the supporting evidence is not in English—should include certified 4 translations of relevant documents to English.” Id.

5 Accordingly, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a motion for alternative service pursuant to 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), if so desired, within forty-five (45) days of this Order. 7 The motion SHALL include: (1) an explanation of the efforts Plaintiff has made to locate 8 Defendant (including whether Plaintiff has been in contact with Defendant); (2) Plaintiff’s 9 proposal for alternative service; and (3) the reason(s) the proposed method of service is 10 “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency 11 of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio 12 Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002). 13 Dated this 31st day of July 2023. 14 A 15 Tana Lin United States District Judge 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

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

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 FANG CONG, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-01703-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 13 XUE ZHAO, 14 Defendant. 15

17 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On July 20, 2023, this Court ordered 18 Plaintiff to file a status report indicating any developments regarding service through China’s 19 Central Authority. Dkt. No. 17. Since then, Plaintiff has filed two status reports. Dkt. Nos. 18, 20 19. In the second report on July 29, Plaintiff states that the Central Authority has closed her case 21 and the documents were not served because the address provided does not exist. Dkt. No. 19 at 1; 22 see Dkt. No. 19-1 (certificate from Central Authority). Plaintiff also expresses a wish for 23 alternative service options. Dkt. No. 19 at 1. This Court previously stated that Plaintiff “may file 24 a new motion seeking alternative service six months after making a proper request to the Central 1 Authority.” Dkt. No. 15 at 3. “The motion for alternative service should include enough detail 2 for the Court to determine that Plaintiff followed the procedures required by the Central 3 Authority, and—if the supporting evidence is not in English—should include certified 4 translations of relevant documents to English.” Id.

5 Accordingly, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a motion for alternative service pursuant to 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), if so desired, within forty-five (45) days of this Order. 7 The motion SHALL include: (1) an explanation of the efforts Plaintiff has made to locate 8 Defendant (including whether Plaintiff has been in contact with Defendant); (2) Plaintiff’s 9 proposal for alternative service; and (3) the reason(s) the proposed method of service is 10 “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency 11 of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio 12 Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2002). 13 Dated this 31st day of July 2023. 14 A 15 Tana Lin United States District Judge 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cong v. Zhao, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cong-v-zhao-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack