Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. v. PlayerAuctions, Inc. et al.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: April 16, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01880
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

O 1

5 6 7

8 9 10

11 United States District Court 12 Central District of California

14 TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE Case № 2:25-cv-01880-ODW (JDEx) SOFTWARE, INC., 15 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff, 16 MOTION TO DEEM DEFENDANT v. SERVED [48] 17 PLAYERAUCTIONS, INC. et al., 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 I. INTRODUCTION 22 Plaintiff Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. brings this copyright and 23 trademark infringement action against Defendants Paiao Network Technology 24 (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. (“PAS”), PlayerAuctions, Inc., and IMI Exchange LLC. (First 25 Am. Compl. (“FAC”), Dkt. No. 30.) Take-Two now moves for an order deeming PAS 26 served based on its prior service attempts or, alternatively, authorizing service by 27 email pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 4(f). (Mot. Deem Def. 28 Served (“Motion” or “Mot.”), Dkt. No. 48.) For the following reasons, the Court 1 GRANTS the Motion.1 2 II. BACKGROUND 3 Take-Two publishes and owns the copyrights to a video game series. (FAC 4 ¶ 1.) Defendants jointly manage a website selling allegedly infringing goods and 5 services associated with Take-Two’s games. (Id. ¶¶ 2–3.) Take-Two operates from 6 the United States. (Id. ¶ 7.) PlayerAuctions and IMI Exchange also operate from the 7 United States (collectively, the “U.S.-based Defendants”), while PAS operates from 8 China. (Id. ¶¶ 8–10.) Although they operate from different locations, Take-Two 9 alleges that PlayerAuctions, IMI Exchange, and PAS share a unity of interest and 10 ownership such that no meaningful separateness exists among them. (Id. ¶ 12.) 11 On March 4, 2025, Take-Two filed this infringement action against Defendants. 12 (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) On March 11, 2025, Take-Two served the summons and 13 complaint on U.S.-based Defendants’ counsel (the “U.S. Counsel”). (Proofs Serv., 14 Dkt. Nos. 9–10.) U.S. Counsel accepted service on behalf of the U.S.-based 15 Defendants. (Id.) However, U.S. Counsel declined to accept service on behalf of 16 PAS, stating they lacked the authority. (Decl. James D. Berkley ISO Mot. (“Berkley 17 Decl.”) ¶ 3, Dkt. No. 48-1.) On or about March 13, 2025, Take-Two mailed the 18 summons and complaint by FedEx to PAS’s registered address in China, where a 19 recipient signed for delivery. (Id. ¶ 2.) Take-Two subsequently learned that PAS 20 would not waive or consent to service. (Id. ¶ 4.) Consequently, Take-Two engaged a 21 third-party vendor to effect service on PAS in China, pursuant to the Hague 22 Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents (“Hague 23 Convention”). (Id.) 24 Pursuant to the Hague Convention, on or about June 10, 2025, Take-Two 25 transmitted the original and translated copies of the summons and complaint to the 26 Central Authority of the People’s Republic of China (“Chinese Central Authority” or 27

28 1 Having carefully considered the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 1 “CCA”) for service on PAS in China. (Id.) Take-Two requested that the Chinese 2 Central Authority serve PAS at two locations: (1) PAS’s registered address (previously 3 used for the FedEx delivery), and (2) PAS’s mailing-business address. (Id.) As to the 4 first address, on or about September 11, 2025, the Chinese Central Authority returned 5 a certificate stating that it found “no such company.” (Id. ¶ 5.) As to the second 6 address, on or about October 29, 2025, the Chinese Central Authority issued a service 7 receipt indicating that an individual there rejected service of the documents. (Id. ¶ 6.) 8 The individual “refused to accept” service because the company’s “head office had 9 already responded to the lawsuit in the United States” so the “Shanghai branch would 10 no longer respond.” (Berkley Decl. Ex. 4 (“CCA Receipt of Service”), Dkt. 11 No. 48-1.) 12 Later, Take-Two identified a publicly listed e-mail address for PAS and sent the 13 initiating documents to it, along with subsequent communications regarding this 14 action. (Berkley Decl. ¶¶ 7, 11.) Take-Two did not receive any response or e-mail 15 bounce-back. (Id. ¶¶ 11–12.) 16 Take-Two now moves for an order deeming PAS served in light of Take-Two’s 17 prior service attempts. (Mot. 7–8.) In the alternative, Take-Two seeks leave to serve 18 PAS by emailing the PAS e-mail address and U.S. Counsel. (Id.) U.S.-based 19 Defendants oppose. (Opp’n, Dkt. No. 50.) 20 III. LEGAL STANDARD 21 Rule 4(h)(2) authorizes service of process on a foreign business entity in the 22 manner prescribed by Rule 4(f) for serving individuals in foreign countries. Under 23 Rule 4(f), service on foreign individuals may be effected “by any internationally 24 agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those 25 authorized by the Hague Convention.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1). 26 Alternatively, Rule 4(f)(3) permits service on individuals in a foreign country 27 “by other means not prohibited by international agreement, as the court orders.” 28 Essentially, “service under Rule 4(f)(3) must be (1) directed by the court; and (2) not 1 prohibited by international agreement.” Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 2 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002). Rule 4(f)(3) does not function as a “last resort” or 3 “extraordinary relief,” but rather provides “merely one means among several” for 4 serving an international defendant. Id. at 1015. Whether the circumstances of a case 5 warrant alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3) rests within a district court’s sound 6 discretion. Id. at 1016. Any method of service authorized by the court must 7 nevertheless comport with constitutional norms of due process. Id. Accordingly, the 8 alternative service must be “reasonably calculated” under the circumstances to provide 9 the defendant with notice of the action and the opportunity to raise objections. Id. 10 IV. DISCUSSION 11 Take-Two requests that the Court deem PAS served based on its prior service 12 attempts. (Mot. 7–8.) Take-Two attempted to serve PAS through three methods: 13 (1) mailing the summons and complaint to PAS’s registered address by FedEx; 14 (2) transmitting the same documents through the Chinese Central Authority for 15 service at two addresses; and (3) providing the summons and complaint to 16 U.S. Counsel. (Berkley Decl. ¶¶ 2–4.) If the Court declines to deem PAS served by 17 one of these attempts, Take-Two seeks leave to effect service by e-mail. (Mot. 7–8.) 18 China is a signatory to the Hague Convention, which governs service of process 19 “in all cases, in civil or commercial matters, where there is occasion to transmit a 20 judicial or extrajudicial document for service abroad.” Hague Convention, Art. 1, 21 Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638 (“Hague Art. 1”). When the Hague 22 Convention applies, its signatories must comply with its procedures. Volkswagenwerk 23 Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 705 (1988). 24 The Hague Convention authorizes three principal methods of service, through: 25 (1) the receiving country’s central authority; (2) various alternative methods, 26 including consular channels, judicial officers, or postal channels where “the receiving 27 country has not objected to such methods”; and (3) “methods to which the receiving 28 country has affirmatively agreed or authorized.” Cadence Design Sys., Inc. v. Fenda 1 USA Inc., 734 F. Supp. 3d 960, 964 (N.D. Cal. 2024). As a signatory to the Hague 2 Convention, China designates these methods as the “exclusive mechanism for service 3 of documents abroad.” Id. at 965. 4 A. First Attempted Service: FedEx Delivery 5 Take-Two first asks the Court to find that mailing the initiating documents by 6 FedEx to PAS’s registered address effected service. (Mot. 7.) Among the Hague 7 Convention’s service provisions, Article 10(a) governs service by postal channels. 8 Rockefeller Tech. Inv. (Asia) VII v. Changzhou SinoType Tech. Co., 9 Cal. 5th 125, 9 137 (2020) (discussing Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 581 U.S. 271 (2017)). However, 10 China “affirmatively object[s] to service ‘by postal channels,’” which effectively 11 precludes parties from relying on Article 10(a) to effect service by mail in China. 12 Facebook, Inc. v. 9 Xiu Network (Shenzhen) Tech. Co., 480 F. Supp. 3d 977, 983 13 (N.D. Cal. 2020). 14 Here, the Hague Convention governs service of process because Take-Two 15 transmitted judicial documents abroad to PAS in China. As service must be effected 16 in China, the country’s affirmative objection under Article 10(a) controls and bars 17 service by FedEx. Water Splash, 581 U.S. at 284 (clarifying that Article 10(a) permits 18 service by mail only where the receiving state does not object). As China expressly 19 objects to mail service, it is irrelevant that California law may authorize service by 20 mail or that an individual signed confirming receipt of the FedEx. See Kott v. 21 Superior Ct., 45 Cal. App. 4th 1126, 1136 (1996) (noting that failure to comply with 22 the Hague Convention’s procedures voids service even where the defendant had actual 23 notice of the lawsuit). For that reason, any attempt to serve PAS by mail, including 24 FedEx, fails at the outset. 25 Accordingly, Take-Two’s attempt to serve PAS by FedEx does not constitute 26 valid service. 27 28 1 B. Second Attempted Service: Chinese Central Authority 2 Take-Two next asks the Court to find that transmitting copies of the summons 3 and complaint through the Chinese Central Authority to two of PAS’s addresses 4 effected service. (Mot. 7–8.) The Hague Convention requires that documents served 5 abroad be “brought to the notice of the [defendant] in sufficient time.” Water Splash, 6 581 U.S. at 276. A party may serve a foreign defendant by submitting a service 7 request to the receiving country’s central authority. Facebook, 480 F. Supp. 3d 8 at 980. The respective central authority must attempt service consistent with the 9 receiving country’s domestic law and provide a certificate confirming service or 10 explaining why service could not be completed. Id. When seeking service through 11 China’s Central Authority, a party must translate the documents into Chinese before 12 the Authority processes the request. Anthony Cal., Inc. v. Fire Power Co., 13 No. 5:15-cv-00876-JGB (SPx), 2017 WL 11631343, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2017). 14 As above, the Hague Convention governs this attempt because Take-Two 15 transmitted judicial documents to PAS in China. This time, Take-Two properly 16 attempted service through the Chinese Central Authority by transmitting to the 17 Authority the original and translated copies of the documents. 18 First, the Chinese Central Authority attempted service at PAS’s registered 19 address, which is the same address to which Take-Two previously FedExed the 20 summons and complaint. However, the Chinese Central Authority found no company 21 operating at that location. Therefore, this attempt could not have been reasonably 22 calculated to provide PAS with notice. See Kott, 45 Cal. App. 4th at 1134 (reasoning 23 that foreign defendants must receive service “that provides ‘notice reasonably 24 calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of 25 the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections’” (quoting 26 Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950))). 27 Second, the Chinese Central Authority attempted service at PAS’s 28 mailing-business address where an unidentified individual affiliated with PAS refused 1 to accept service. The individual stated they were refusing service because its “head 2 office had already responded to the lawsuit in the United States.” (CCA Receipt of 3 Service.) Although this response supports a reasonable inference that the individual is 4 affiliated with PAS, the individual’s refusal to accept service precludes a finding that 5 this attempt effected service under the Hague Convention. 6 Accordingly, Take-Two’s attempts to serve PAS through the Chinese Central 7 Authority do not constitute valid service. 8 C. Third Attempted Service: U.S. Counsel 9 Take-Two finally requests that the Court find its service on U.S. Counsel to 10 have effected service on PAS. (Mot. 7–8.) A “common form of service ordered under 11 Rule 4(f)(3)” permits a party to effect service on a foreign defendant by serving its 12 United States-based counsel domestically. Richmond Techs., Inc. v. Aumtech Bus. 13 Sols., No. 11-cv-02460-LHK, 2011 WL 2607158, at *13 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2011). In 14 fact, due process does not even require the domestic counsel to “have represented [the 15 foreign defendant] or been authorized to accept service on their behalf.” Brown v. 16 China Integrated Energy, Inc., 285 F.R.D. 560, 565–66 (C.D. Cal. 2012). Rather, a 17 party need only show that such counsel maintains contact with the foreign defendant 18 sufficient to provide the defendant with reasonable notice. See id. at 566 (finding 19 service on company’s U.S.-based counsel or registered agent reasonably provided 20 notice to foreign defendants who were officers of the company). 21 Unlike the two attempts above, the Hague Convention does not govern service 22 of process here because Take-Two transmitted judicial documents within the United 23 States. Schlunk, 486 U.S. at 707 (holding that the Hague Convention has “no further 24 implications” when a party transmits judicial documents within the United States). 25 Specifically, on March 11, 2025, Take-Two provided the initiating documents to 26 U.S. Counsel for PAS’s corporate parent and affiliate, U.S.-based Defendants. 27 U.S Counsel declined to accept service on behalf of PAS, stating that he lacked 28 authorization. However, that refusal does not necessarily defeat service. SEC v. 1 China Sky One Med., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-07543-MWF (MANx), 2013 WL 12314508, 2 at *5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2013) (finding that U.S.-based counsel’s lack of 3 authorization to accept service and lack of representation in the matter “do not defeat 4 service on such counsel”). 5 As noted, service may be effective where there is evidence of contact between 6 the U.S.-based Defendants and PAS such that notice to one would reasonably provide 7 notice to the other. Here, when the Chinese Central Authority attempted to serve PAS 8 at its business-mailing address, an individual at that address refused service because 9 PAS’s head office was addressing the suit. (CCA Receipt of Service.) Specifically, 10 the individual declined service after PAS “contacted its headquarters” and learned that 11 PAS’s “head office had already responded to the lawsuit in the United States.” (Id.) 12 Thus, PAS maintains contact with its domestic parent and affiliate, U.S.-based 13 Defendants in this case, which are represented by U.S. Counsel. This contact 14 provided PAS with actual notice of the suit here, which is more than the minimal 15 contact other courts have found sufficient to reasonably provide notice. See China 16 Sky, 2013 WL 12314508, at *5 (finding that U.S.-based counsel’s prior relationship 17 with foreign defendant was sufficient to reasonably provide notice, despite counsel’s 18 lack of active involvement in the litigation). By serving the initiating case documents 19 on U.S. Counsel, Take-Two employed a method “reasonably calculated” to give PAS 20 notice of this action. Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314. 21 Accordingly, Take-Two’s attempt to serve PAS through U.S. Counsel 22 constitutes effective service. Thus, the Court deems PAS served as of March 11, 23 2025. See Quality Inv. Fund, Malta 1, Ltd. v. Schuermann, No. 2:16-cv-05720-TJH 24 (JEMx), 2018 WL 6252426, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 20, 2018) (retroactively approving 25 service where the plaintiff’s prior method of service was reasonably calculated to 26 notify the defendant of the action). 27 Given this finding, the Court declines to address Take-Two’s request to 28 authorize service by alternative means as moot. 1 Vv. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Take-Two’s Motion and 3 || deems PAS served. (Dkt. No. 48.) PAS shall answer or otherwise respond to 4|| Take-Two’s First Amended Complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the date of 5 || this Order. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 April 16, 2026

OTIS D. HT, II 3 UNITED STATES pISTRIc JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28